The project scope includes removing improvements that are nonconforming with respect to the Beach Overlay Zone and Local Coastal Program requirements for shoreline protective devices. The removal of existing improvements would return approximately 1,000 square feet of sandy beach for public recreation opportunities in the area that is currently encumbered by private improvements.
On August 26, 2025, Julie Hamilton, representative for Steven Mack (“Appellant), the neighbor to the south at 2932 Camino Del Mar, filed an appeal of the PC’s decision (Attachment A). The Appellant’s concern is with the vibration impacts caused from the pile driving construction activities which they fear might result in damage to their property.
This concern was also raised at the PC meeting on August 12, 2025, by Ms. Hamilton on behalf of Mr. Mack, at which time they requested that the PC impose a condition that would require the Applicant to post a surety bond to be used should Mr. Mack’s home become damaged from the construction of this seawall.
After hearing extensive testimony from the applicant and public, the PC’s approval did not include a special condition requiring the Applicant to obtain a surety bond to cover any damage to the Appellant’s property. Should there be allegations of property damage, that would be a private matter between the parties and not a municipal matter. As such, it is staff’s determination that: 1) the PC thoroughly reviewed and considered the application in accordance with the DMMC and the Local Coastal Program; 2) the appeal does not warrant a de novo hearing; and 3) the City Council should uphold the PC’s approval of the application.
BACKGROUND
On August 12, 2025, the PC conducted a public hearing to consider the Applicant’s request to remove existing nonconforming seawall, rip rap and wooden stairs and construct a new seawall designed and located in conformance with standards of the Beach Overlay Zone and the City of Del Mar Local Coastal Program (LCP) at 2936 Camino Del Mar in the R1-5 Beach Zone.
The proposed seawall is designed as a vertical sheet-pile wall with reinforced concrete cap. The steel sheet-pile would extend down to an elevation, along its vertical face, of -
24.2 feet NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum). The concrete cap is a structural feature of the wall and supports the sheet-pile. The cap would extend down to an elevation of +3.8 feet NGVD. The top of the concrete cap would be +14.8 feet NGVD.
For reference, the 29th Street elevation is at approximately +12 feet NGVD. Typically, during normal summer beach profiles, the only portion of the wall visible would be the concrete cap.
The new seawall would include an engineered cut-out with concrete steps at the northern end to allow the property owner beach access from their patio deck. A movable 2 October 20, 2025 Item 14
City Council Agenda Report
Initial Consideration of Appeal of SSP25-002
October 20, 2025
barrier (stop log) would allow the access to be closed off during storm events and protect the property. To the north, the applicant’s proposed seawall would connect to the existing BPI-compliant seawall at 2938 Sandy Lane. To the south, the seawall would include a 10’6” return wall to provide flank protection of the Appellant’s property at 2932 Camino Del Mar, which does not have a BPI-compliant seawall.
During the public hearing, the PC received public testimony from the Applicant’s representatives, project engineer Walter Crampton, and legal counsel Lee Andelin. Julie Hamilton, representative for the southerly abutting property owner Steven Mack, raised concerns about the potential for damage to Mr. Mack’s property from vibration impacts caused by the pile driving construction activities. In response, Mr. Crampton discussed his experience with designing most of the code compliant seawalls in Del Mar since the mid-1980’s, concluding that using state-of-the-art pile driving equipment would minimize vibration and it is unlikely that damage to adjoining structures would occur.
Following the close of the public hearing, the PC deliberated on the project’s consistency with the standards of the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC Chapter 30.51 Setback Seawall Permit) and the City’s Local Coastal Program. The PC also discussed whether a condition to require a surety bond should be included in the project approval.
Based on guidance provided by the City Attorney’s office during the meeting explaining that the issues raised by Mr. Mack’s representative would be a private matter between the applicant and their neighbor, the Planning Commission did not address the concerns as a condition for issuance of a seawall permit.
Following deliberations, the PC voted 4-0-1 (4 approved, 1 absent) to approve Setback Seawall Permit SSP25-002 with staff’s recommended conditions in the Resolution, Attachment B.
The staff report for the August 12, 2025, PC meeting with more information and analysis is included as Attachment C. The “red dot” correspondence from the Appellant for the PC hearing is included. The meeting video for the August 12, 2025 hearing can be found here: Del Mar, CA | Planning Commission Meeting - 8/12/2025 APPEAL
Pursuant to DMMC Chapter 1.12, an interested person may file an appeal with the City Clerk within ten working days following the determination for which a review is sought.
DMMC 1.12.020(B) identifies the following Grounds for Appeal:
1. Factual Error. The statements or evidence relied upon by the decision maker when approving, conditionally approving or denying a permit, map, or other matter were inaccurate.
3 October 20, 2025 Item 14
City Council Agenda Report
Initial Consideration of Appeal of SSP25-002
October 20, 2025
2. New Information. New information is available to the applicant or the interested person that was not available through reasonable efforts or due diligence at the time of the decision.
3. Findings Not Supported. The decision maker's stated findings to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the permit, map or other matter are not supported by the information provided to the decision maker.
4. Conflicts. The decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the permit is in conflict with a land use plan, a City policy, or the Municipal Code.
In the documents submitted by the Appellant on August 26, 2025 (Attachment A – Appeal Request), the Appellant contends that the PC’s approval of application SSP25- 002 contains “findings not supported” and should be heard as a de novo (“new”) hearing by the City Council. Below is the Appellant’s reason for appeal (shown in bold text) followed by staff’s response and the Applicant’s response (Attachment D):
Appeal Point 1: Planning Commission’s Findings for DMMC § 30.51.040 Not Supported By Information Provided to the Decision Maker The Appellant contends that the grounds to appeal the Planning Commission’s findings to approve the Application are not supported by the information provided to the PC. The Appellant contends that DMMC Section 30.51.040 “requires the Planning Commission find the proposed seawall will neither create nor contribute significantly to the destruction of the site or surrounding area.”
Ms. Hamilton stated in the appeal request (and at the PC meeting) that Mr. Mack has hired a firm to conduct a comprehensive pre-construction inspection as well as vibration and movement monitoring throughout construction. Ms. Hamilton also referenced damage to the floors and windows of Mr. Mack’s residence, which they believe was caused by the seawall construction at 2920 Camino del Mar (Naftzger). She stated that without a condition on measures to protect Mr. Mack’s property from damage, there is no assurance that the project would neither create nor contribute to the destruction of Mr. Mack’s property and therefore the PC cannot make the findings required in DMMC
30.51.040.
STAFF RESPONSE TO APPEAL:
Although Appellant claims the grounds for appeal include “findings not supported,” the Appeal lacks sufficient information, documentation or arguments to demonstrate how the PC’s findings were not supported by the information provided.
In their appeal, the Appellant did not cite the full code as is provided below:
4 October 20, 2025 Item 14
City Council Agenda Report
Initial Consideration of Appeal of SSP25-002
October 20, 2025
Setback Seawall Permit DMMC Section 30.51.040 – C. (Criteria for Approval) “Will assure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area, nor in any way substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.” The Applicant’s civil engineer submitted construction plans and a Geotechnical/Coastal Engineering Report for the proposed seawall design. The justifications for the location, height and design of the seawall are fully analyzed in the Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposal, which discusses the geotechnical, coastal engineering and design parameters for the project (Exhibit B in PC staff report).
The Project plans and Geotechnical Reports have been reviewed by the City’s consulting geotechnical engineers and determined to be technically acceptable. The design is found to comply with Chapters 30.50 and 30.51, the Program EIR for the Beach Preservation Initiative and the City’s certified Local Coastal Program, specifically that the design of the proposed seawall, effectively protect the subject property and would not contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area. The subject property is not located near natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.
The Appellant has not provided evidence to substantiate the alleged damage to their property related to the seawall construction at 2920 Camino Del Mar (Naftzger) and has acknowledged that project used different and inferior construction equipment than what is proposed for the Applicant’s project. Regardless, private property damage related to another project is a civil matter and should not be taken into consideration or addressed by the City as part of the review and approval for the Applicant’s project.
The project is a standard seawall project consistent with the requirements of the Beach Overlay Zone, Beach Preservation Initiative, and Del Mar’s certified Local Coastal Program. The Planning Commission approval includes standard project conditions for a seawall project. Further, DMMC 30.51.040 (1) requires an indemnity agreement which is included as Condition S-7 in the Planning Commission Resolution of approval.
PROJECT APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO APPEAL:
The Applicant’s legal counsel, Lee Andelin, has submitted a response to the appeal, which has been included as Attachment D to this report. In summary, Mr. Andelin contends that the Planning Commission’s findings for DMMC 30.51.040 (C) correctly recites the evidence in support of the finding, which states: “The proposed seawall has been designed using contemporary standards and methods of engineering in accordance the design and location requirements of Chapters 30.50 and 30.51 of the Del Mar Municipal Code. Submitted analysis from a qualified civil engineer (and reviewed and verified by expert third party) specifically confirms that the design of the proposed seawall, effectively protect the subject property and would not contribute 5 October 20, 2025 Item 14
City Council Agenda Report
Initial Consideration of Appeal of SSP25-002
October 20, 2025
significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area….” Mr. Andelin also contends that the proposed seawall is based on the City’s standard seawall design that has been implemented without incident all along the City’s coastline. Further, he contends that the Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the alleged damage from another project, and that other projects using the same high grade equipment planned for the Applicant’s project have been successfully completed in the surrounding area without reports of damage.
NEXT STEPS
The City’s appeal process is a two-step process. Pursuant to DMMC Section 1.12.040, the first step is an Initial Consideration during which the City Council shall consider the written appeal document, any written response from the applicant(s), the City response, any testimony received, and the record from the public hearing that is the subject of the appeal. In addition, both the Appellant and the Applicant may each have up to three minutes for oral comments. No rebuttal arguments will be heard.
The decision for which the appeal has been made will be deemed affirmed unless two (2) or more members of the City Council vote to hear the matter. If two (2) or more City Councilmembers vote to hear the matter, then the project will be set for a de novo hearing by the City Council and the determination by the PC shall be advisory only.
CONCLUSION
It is staff’s recommendation that the concerns cited within the appeal have been addressed to the greatest extent feasible by the PC. In rendering its determination, the PC considered standards enumerated in the Del Mar Municipal Code, Del Mar’s certified Local Coastal Program, staff’s report, site visits to the Applicant’s and Appellant’s property, submitted materials, and testimony (written and oral) from the Applicant and Appellant.
Based upon facts in the record, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the PC’s action to approve application SSP25-002 and not set the appeal for a de novo hearing.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact or action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item, as this is a private development application. The Appellant has paid all fees associated with the appeal.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A- Appellant’s Appeal Request
Attachment B- Planning Commission Resolution
Attachment C- August 12, 2025 PC Staff Report with Red Dot Correspondence Attachment D- Applicant’s Response to Appellant’s Appeal Request 6 October 20, 2025 Item 14
501 W. Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Ph: 619.278.0701 Fx: 619.278.0705 www.jmhamiltonlaw.com
The Law Office of
Julie M. Hamilton
August 26, 2025
City Clerk
City of Del Mar
1050 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
RE: Appeal of Setback Seawall Permit, SSP 25-002
2936 Camino Del Mar (Revised)
Dear Madam Clerk:
On behalf of my client Steve Mack, I am appealing the Planning Commission approval of the above setback seawall permit on August 12, 2025. Mr. Mack owns the home at 2932 Camino Del Mar which is located immediately to the south of the proposed seawall, his phone number is . Mr. Mack is appealing the Planning Commission approval because the findings are not supported by the information provided to the decision maker.
Del Mar Municipal Code §30.51.040 requires the Planning Commission find the proposed seawall will neither create nor contribute significantly to destruction of the site or surrounding area. Mr. Mack’s home was designed by architect Sim Bruce Richards, a student of Frank Lloyd Wright. The home is organic in that it is characterized by soaring spaces and glass expanses. The walls are redwood, cedar, stained glass and brick. The floors are wood blocks of varying woods.
Due to the unique materials and methods of construction, this home is particularly sensitive to vibrations and movement. The home suffered significant damage during the construction of the seawall at 2920 Camino Del Mar – which has since been repaired.
Although Mr. Mack is not opposed to the concept of a seawall construction in general, it is critical that any approval be conditioned on measures to protect the adjacent property from damage.
Without this protection there is no assurance construction of the seawall at 2936 Camino Del Mar will neither create nor contribute to destruction of Mr. Mack’s property.
RECEIVED
By Skrietor at 1:48 pm, 8/26/25 ATTACHMENT A
7 October 20, 2025 Item 14
City Clerk
August 26, 2025
Thank you for your consideration of this appeal.
Regards,
Julie M. Hamilton
Attorney for Steve Mack
Enclosures
8 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Setback Seawall Permit
2936 Camino Del Mar
Concerns of Steve Mack
2932 Camino Del Mar
9 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Del Mar
Municipal
Code
Section
30.51 • 30.51.040 Criteria for
Approval
• C. Will assure stability
and structural integrity and
neither create nor
contribute significantly to
erosion, geologic
instability, or destruction of
the site or surrounding
area, nor in any way
substantially alter natural
landforms along bluffs and
cliffs.
• 2932 is a unique home
designed by Sim Bruce
Richards; a student of Frank
Lloyd Wright
• Due to the construction
methods and materials used
in the home design, the
construction of a seawall on
the adjoining property may
cause significant damage.
• Construction of the seawall at
2920 Camino Del Mar caused
significant damage to Mr.
Mack’s home requiring
substantial remediation.
10 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Sim Bruce
Richards
Sim Bruce Richards was discovered by Frank Lloyd
Wright through his early abstract rug designs while
attending UC Berkeley (1930-34)15. Upon an invitation
from Mr. Wright, impressed by Bruce’s early work,
Richards worked directly for Wright in the Taliesin
Fellowship between 1934-3516. Bruce moved to San
Diego in 1938 and drafted for the 11th Naval District
and later William Templeton Johnson15. Following a
brief stint with architect Harold Abrams (1946)15, Bruce began a multi-decade career designing some of the
finest hand-crafted residences that followed Wright’s
principles of organic architecture [Among them: Siting
a project in the manner the site dictated; using organic and even native materials to the site and surrounding
areas; and incorporating plenty of natural light with a project designed at a “human” scale].
11 October 20, 2025 Item 14
12 October 20, 2025 Item 14
• Midcentury modern-inspired
post and beam construction.
• Characterized by soaring
spaces and glass expanses that
bring the outdoors in.
• Redwood, walls of cedar,
stained glass, stone and brick
13 October 20, 2025 Item 14
The wood block floors
of varying woods are
particularly
susceptible to damage
and require a
craftsman to repair.
14 October 20, 2025 Item 14
15 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Damage to
Surrounding
Area
• The home at 2932 Camino Del Mar, designed
by noted architect Sim Bruce Richards, is a
unique example of organic architecture and is
constructed with materials and methods that
make it particularly sensitive to vibrations and
movement. During the construction of a
previous seawall at 2920 Camino Del Mar, Mr.
Mack’s home experienced significant damage,
including flooring and window seal failures,
which required extensive repairs by
specialized craftsmen.
• While Mr. Mack is not opposed to the concept
of seawall construction in general, it is critical
that any approval be conditioned on measures
to protect adjacent properties from damage.
• Mr. Mack has retained the firm of Josephson
and Werdowatz to conduct a comprehensive
pre-construction inspection as well as
vibration and movement monitoring
throughout construction.
16 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Liability
• Mr. Mack is asking for a surety to cover the cost
of any damage to his home and provide for
alternate accommodations during repairs/
• The applicant has indicated a willingness to
come to an agreement; but parties have not had
the time to develop a special condition or
agreement that will address the problem.
• It is incumbent upon the City to require the
project is completed in a manner that does not
damage or destroy the surrounding area,
including Mr. Mack’s home at 2932 Camino Del
Mar.
17 October 20, 2025 Item 14
RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF DEL MAR CERTIFYING AN ADDENDUM TO A
PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 88092919) AND APPROVING SETBACK
SEAWALL PERMIT SSP25-002 TO REMOVE EXISTING SEAWALL
AND ROCK REVETMENT (RIP RAP) LOCATED WITHIN THE
SHORELINE PROTECTION AREA AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 80-
FOOT-LONG SEAWALL DESIGNED AND LOCATED EAST OF THE
SHORELINE PROTECTION AREA LINE IN CONFORMANCE WITH
STANDARDS OF THE BEACH OVERLAY ZONE AND THE CITY OF
DEL MAR LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AND CONCUR WITH THE
APPLICANT’S REQUEST TO CONSOLIDATE THE REQUIRED
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR PROCESSING AND
APPROVAL BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2936 CAMINO DEL MAR, DEL MAR,
CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, Oceans Investments, LLC (APPLICANT) is the owner of real property commonly referred to as 2936 Camino Del Mar (APN: 299-020-12-00) (PROPERTY); and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed verified application for a Setback Seawall Permit SSP25- 002 (PROJECT) to remove existing shoreline protective devices consisting of a seawall and rock revetment located within the Shoreline Protection Area and construct a new vertical sheet-pile seawall approximately 80-feet long to be located easterly of the Shoreline Protection Area (SPA) line, adjacent to 2936 Camino Del Mar; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitute a request as provided by Title 30 of the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC); and
WHEREAS, a Coastal Development Permit from the City of Del Mar and the California Coastal Commission is required for the project and the Applicant has requested to consolidate the permit processing with the California Coastal Commission; and WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report for the Beach Preservation Initiative was certified by Resolution 89-56 by the City Council of the City of Del Mar following circulation to the public, responsible agencies, and other interested persons for their review and comment as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, since the time of the original certification of the Program Environmental Report, the City of Del Mar received development applications (Shoreline Protection Permit and Setback Seawall Permit) to remove existing shoreline protective devices located on beachfront properties and construct a new BPI compliant seawall; and WHEREAS, an Addendum to the Program Environmental Impact Report, dated July 29, 2025, and prepared for the City of Del Mar by RECON Environmental Inc., has been prepared in accordance with applicable law, including the CEQA, Public Resources Code of Regulations
ATTACHMENT B
18 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Resolution No. PC 2025-07
SSP25-002
section 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations section 15000 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum to the Program Environmental Report determined that the proposed changes to remove existing shoreline protective devices and construct a new seawall on the PROPERTY would not result in any new significant impacts or substantially change the severity of the impacts from the adopted Program Environmental Impact Report, and no new mitigation is required; and
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2025, the Design Review Board of the City of Del Mar, serving as the advisory body to the Planning Commission on design related matters to ensure the use of good design which encompasses the use of harmonious material and color, held a duly noticed public hearing to review the referenced entitlements pursuant to Section 6 of the Implementation Guidelines for the Beach Preservation Initiative, and at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include without limitation:
a. Plans submitted by the Applicant.
b. Written information submitted with the application.
c. Staff Report, dated July 23, 2025 which is incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein; and
d. Oral testimony from City staff, the Applicant and the public (if any) e. Additional information submitted during the hearing (if any); and WHEREAS, on July 23, 2025, the Design Review Board of the City of Del Mar, recommended to the Planning Commission approval of the design aesthetic of the seawall; and WHEREAS, on August 12, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Del Mar held a duly noticed public hearing to review the referenced entitlements, to consider the referenced Addendum to the previously certified Programmatic EIR, and at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include without limitation:
a. Plans submitted by the Applicant.
b. Written information submitted with the application.
c. Staff Report, dated August 12, 2025 which is incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein; and
d. Oral testimony from City staff, the Applicant and the public (if any) e. Additional information submitted during the hearing (if any); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Del Mar certifies the Addendum to the Certified Program Environmental Impact Report for the Beach Preservation Initiative, based on the following findings:
1. That the Addendum to the Certified Program Environmental Report (SCH No. 288092919) for the Beach Preservation Initiative has been prepared in compliance with 19 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Resolution No. PC 2025-07
SSP25-002
the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), as amended, and the CEQA Guidelines thereto (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.).
2. That the Addendum to the Program Environmental Impact Report for the Beach Preservation Initiative reflects the independent judgment of the City of Del Mar as the Lead Agency.
3. That the Addendum to the Program Environmental Impact Report for the Beach Preservation Initiative is accurate and complete.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Del Mar, that Setback Seawall Permit SSP25-002 is hereby approved based on the following findings in DMMC Setback Seawall Permit Section 30.51.040 (Criterial for Approval):
A. Is required to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing principal structures or public beaches in danger from erosion and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts to local shoreline sand supply.
The proposed seawall would be designed and located in compliance with standards enumerated in Chapter 30.51 of the Del Mar Municipal Code and would serve to protect land zoned for development with residential uses. Analysis submitted by a licensed civil engineer and with concurring third-party review by a city-contracted consultant verifies that the construction of a new seawall at the subject property will not have an adverse effect on the erosion or accretion of sand either immediately ocean-ward or up and down the coast from the subject property.
B. Will minimize risks to life and property in areas of flood hazards.
The proposed seawall has been designed and would be located in accordance with standards of Chapter 30.51 of the Del Mar Municipal Code, ensuring that the structure would serve to minimize risks to life and property for property located within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) VE (Coastal High Hazard) Zone, properties subject to special flood hazard extending from offshore to any area subject to high velocity wave action from storms, seismic forces or tsunamis, to the greatest extent feasible.
C. Will assure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area, nor in any way substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.
The proposed seawall has been designed using contemporary standards and methods of engineering in accordance the design and location requirements of Chapter 30.51 of the Del Mar Municipal Code. Submitted analysis from a qualified civil engineer (and reviewed and verified by expert third-party) specifically confirms that the design of the 20 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Resolution No. PC 2025-07
SSP25-002
proposed seawall, effectively protect the subject property and would not contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area. The subject property is not located near natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.
D. Is in conformity with the certified Local Coastal Program; Subject to review and approval of Setback Seawall Permit, seawalls are a permitted use in the R1-10 Beach zoning designations for the property. The structure has been reviewed for conformance with applicable standards of the Beach Overlay Zone by the Planning and Engineering Departments as well as a third-party civil engineer, found to comply, and so would be in conformity with the City of Del Mar’s certified Local Coastal Program. The seawall would not obstruct public coastal views, nor would it impact public parking or beach access. Public access is currently provided at the 29th Street street end approximately 270-feet to the south and at the southwest end of the Camino Del Mar Bridge/San Dieguito Lagoon approximately 400-feet to the north.
Public parking is provided at the 29th Street street end and along Camino Del Mar located between these beach access points.
E. Is in conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act;
The proposed seawall would facilitate lateral public access that is presently reduced due to the nonconforming location of the property’s existing seawall within the Shoreline Protection Area. With removal of the existing rock revetment and seawall placed on public beach westerly of the Shoreline Protection Area (SPA) delineation line and construction of a new BPI compliant wall located landward (easterly) of the SPA line, additional sandy beach (approximately 1,000 square-feet) would be made available to the public bringing the property into compliance with the City’s Local Coastal Program, itself acting as the implementing mechanism for the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. Vertical public access is currently provided at the 29th Street street end approximately 270-feet to the south and at the southwest end of the Camino Del Mar Bridge/San Dieguito Lagoon approximately 400-feet to the north. Public parking is provided on 29th Street and along Camino Del Mar located between these beach access points in proximity to the project site.
F. Will involve materials and a design that are consistent with good engineering practices;
The proposed seawall has been designed utilizing contemporary standards and methods of engineering in accordance with Chapter 30.51 of the Del Mar Municipal Code and reviewed for compliance by both by the Applicant’s civil engineer, as well as the City’s chosen third-party civil engineer. Surfacing for the proposed wall would be comprised of concrete similar to and complementary of existing up down coast seawalls. 21 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Resolution No. PC 2025-07
SSP25-002
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Del Mar that SSP25-002 shall be subject to the following conditions:
Note: Gaps in numbering and lettering are intentional.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
G-1 [Business License]
Prior to commencement of any work on site, all contractors and subcontractors shall obtain a valid City of Del Mar Business License. The general contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that all subcontractors obtain required Business License and shall retain copies of said permits on site for verification by City staff.
G-3 [Development Authorization Limited to Plan Set]
This permit is granted based on submitted plans dated August 12, 2025, and so identified by the staff of the Del Mar Planning and Community Development Department. Revisions to these plans and/or any proposals for modification shall require review and prior authorization from the appropriate entities of the City of Del Mar.
G-4 [Encroachment Permit for Work in Right-of-Way]
Any work proposed or required within a City of Del Mar public right-of-way or access easement, or required within a public right-of-way or access easements pursuant to the conditions of approval of this Permit, shall be subject to the prior receipt of a City of Del Mar Encroachment Permit.
Applications for Encroachment Permits shall include plans depicting all proposed private and public improvements including, but not limited to, improvements involving drainage, grading and/or public utilities. The required Encroachment Permit shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Del Mar in accordance with the procedures set forth in the DMMC and may include requirements for inspections and/or submittal of a security deposit(s). Please note that project plans indicating right-of-way improvements/access does not constitute approval of the separately required Encroachment Permit.
G-8 [Height and Setback Certifications Prior to Final Sign Off] Prior to final project sign-off by the Planning Department, the Applicant shall provide a statement from a Licensed Surveyor or registered civil engineer certifying that the wall height, location and alignment are in compliance with approved plans. The submitted certification shall be made using approved City of Del Mar elevation benchmarks or reference points.
G-11 [Plan for Construction-Phase Impacts]
Prior to issuance of Building Permits or commencement of project implementation (whichever comes first), the Applicant shall provide a plan to the Planning Department for construction-phase parking and equipment/materials storage for the project. The plan must include the following:
a. Identification of an on-site material storage location; b. Identification of an on-site equipment storage location; c. Identification of at least two on-site parking space which will remain available throughout the duration of the project;
22 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Resolution No. PC 2025-07
SSP25-002
d. Location of any temporary sanitary facilities;
e. A note stating that “If on-street parking is utilized, a minimum street access clearance of 20ft. will be maintained”;
f. Map displaying any/all haul routes; and
g. Contact information (phone number and Email) for the on-site supervisor(s);
1. This information must also be posted on-site in a location which is readily visible from the public right-of-way for the duration of the project.
The plan required herein shall be subject to the review and written approval of the Planning and Community Development Director, working in consultation with Community Services/Parking Enforcement and Public Works Departments. Haul routes and work and/or storage of material or equipment within a City right-of-way will require the receipt of an Encroachment Permit. The requirements mentioned above may be modified by the Planning and Community Development Director, or his designee, upon a determination that sufficient alternatives have been proposed which achieve a similar level of compliance.
G-11A In addition to the submittal of a Construction Phase Impact Plan, the applicant must place a Construction Parking Placard in all vehicles associated with the project which will be parked off-site. The placard must remain in plain view on the dashboard of the vehicle throughout the duration of the project. A Construction Parking Placard can be obtained from the City of Del Mar Planning Department.
G-13 [Permit Expiration]
This Permit shall expire three years from the date of approval, on August 12, 2028 unless a Building Permit has been issued (if required by the DMMC) and substantial construction has been accomplished in reliance upon the permit. Pursuant to the DMMC, substantial construction is defined as: completion of a minimum of 10% of the total amount of construction authorized by the permit, based on the monetary value of construction costs including grading, site preparation and construction but specifically excluding all costs associated with the acquisition of interest in the project site and all costs associated with the preparation and processing of permits or plans.
G-14 [Preconstruction Meeting]
Prior to any demolition, construction, and/or land disturbances occurring on-site, a preconstruction meeting shall be held. Attendees to this meeting shall include representatives from the City of Del Mar’s Planning and Community Development Department, City Engineer, the Project Contractor/Superintendent, the Project Architect, the Project Engineer, the property owner and any others essential for the proper implementation and completion of this project. At a minimum, the following issues shall be reviewed at this meeting:
a. City of Del Mar inspection requirements.
b. Process for requests for plan modification and determinations of substantial conformance.
c. Discretionary permit conditions and requirements.
d. Construction hour limitations and noise standards.
e. Construction access and parking including equipment/materials storage and maintenance.
23 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Resolution No. PC 2025-07
SSP25-002
f. Work within public rights-of-way and/or easements.
g. Stormwater Best Management Practices.
h. Tree-preservation requirements.
i. Demolition permit requirements.
j. Signage requirements/limitations.
k. Neighborhood impact issues.
l. Key contact information.
m. Business license requirements.
n. Construction and demolition waste diversion requirements o. Any other pertinent construction related activities and or information.
G-16 [Compliance with City Noise Regulations]
The applicant and all parties involved with implementation of the project shall comply with the regulations of the DMMC with regard to construction noise. The regulations stipulate that all construction activities are limited to the following periods: between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. / Monday through Friday and between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction activities are prohibited during other hours and on Sundays and City Holidays. The City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.20 of the Del Mar Municipal Code, includes the dates of City Holidays, and can be viewed on the City’s web page (www.delmar.ca.us).
G-17 [Dig Alert]
Prior to excavation or trenching, the applicant shall call Underground Service Alert of Southern California (Dig Alert- 1-800-227-2600) for a mark out of service utilities.
G-18 [Rules for Construction-related Signage]
All construction-related signage posted at the project site shall comply with DMMC Chapter 30.84 (Signs). The pertinent sections of the Sign Chapter allow installation of a total 5.5 square feet of temporary signage on a residential property (that is cumulative of all signs posted). Such signs may be posted for a maximum of sixty (60) days in a calendar year.
The restrictions noted above do not apply to the Development Pending, Construction Noise Notice and Building Permit signs required by the City as part of the project review process.
All construction related signage, including City required signs, shall be removed prior to final approval of the project.
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS
E-1 [Authorization for off-site work]
Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the Applicant shall obtain letters of permission from any affected property owners if any construction or construction access is required across property lines.
E-2 [Compliance with Appendix C-5 - Construction Urban Runoff] This project shall conform to Appendix C-5, the "Construction Urban Runoff Requirements Manual" as depicted in the latest edition of the City of Del Mar's "Jurisdictional Urban Runoff 24 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Resolution No. PC 2025-07
SSP25-002
Management Program". In addition, the construction practices are subject to inspection, and must conform to the "Low Priority Urban Runoff Management Plan" and corresponding "Urban Runoff Construction Site Inspection Record" as depicted in Appendix C-5.
STORMWATER CONDITIONS
SW-1 [Storm Drain Protection]
Down gradient storm drains shall be protected at all times with perimeter controls, such as gravel bags or straw wattles. All sediment accumulation shall be removed (swept up, etc.) periodically, and prior to removal of controls.
SW-2 [Building Material Storage]
All building materials and fuel stored on-site must be properly contained and covered.
SW-3 [Perimeter Controls]
Perimeter controls must be used to surround the entire site to control run-on and run-off water flows. Gravel bags, silt fences, and/or straw wattles may be used as perimeter controls. All controls must be checked and maintained daily. In the event that perimeter controls are damaged, they will be replaced at the earliest possible time, not to exceed 2 days.
SW-4 [On-Site Storage]
Construction materials must be stored on-site at all times unless a City of Del Mar Encroachment Permit has been obtained. Building materials should be covered when not in use to prevent runoff caused by wind or rain.
SW-5 [Refuse Containment]
All dumpsters on-site must be covered. If a fixed-cover is not used, a rollback tarp shall be made available. Perimeter controls must be installed surrounding the dumpster. Areas around dumpsters should be swept daily and damaged perimeter controls replaced as necessary. If dumpsters are kept in the right-of-way, appropriate permits must be obtained.
SW-6 [Portable Toilets]
Perimeter controls must be installed surrounding all Port-a-Potties. Perimeter controls shall be replaced as necessary to prevent discharge. If Port-a-Potties are kept in the right-of-way, appropriate permits must be obtained.
SW-7 [Concrete Containment]
All concrete trucks/pumpers/mixers shall be surrounded by perimeter controls, such as gravel bags.
Plastic sheets or tarps shall be placed beneath concrete pumpers at all times, and all residual materials swept up. Washout areas must be used whenever cleaning trucks, pumpers, or mixers.
Under no condition will run-off from wash-out of materials be allowed to discharge into the storm drain.
SW-8 [Wet Material Disposal]
Disposal of “wet” construction materials shall be handled in the washout area. This shall include paint, stucco, and concrete. A berm and/or plastic sheet shall be used to collect and contain liquids 25 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Resolution No. PC 2025-07
SSP25-002
and prevent run-off in nearby areas. The wash-out area shall be checked and maintained daily to ensure compliance. All washout liquids shall be disposed of properly.
SW-9 [Dirt/Gravel Coverage]
Mounds of dirt or gravel shall be stored on-site, and out of the right-of-way, unless a City of Del Mar Encroachment Permit has been obtained. All mounds shall be covered daily with a tarp, coconut mat, or other form of protection. Visqueen and/or tarps must be available and on-site to cover 125% of exposed areas during the rainy season (October-April).
SW-10 [Heavy Equipment]
All earthmoving equipment shall be stored on-site. Any required maintenance shall also be conducted on-site. Any tracks or trails left by equipment leading to and from the site shall be cleaned up immediately. If power washing is used to clean-up tracks and/or trails, all run-off shall be directed to vegetated or permeable areas and prevented from entering the municipal stormwater conveyance system. If permeable areas are unavailable, and power washing used, all washout shall be collected and disposed of properly.
SW-11 [Contractor Instruction]
All subcontractors shall be instructed by the General Contractor on the proper use of stormwater controls at the site. It shall be the responsibility of the General Contractor (or their delegated representative) to ensure that stormwater controls are maintained throughout construction operations.
SW-12 [Landscape Materials/Trench Materials]
All stockpiles of landscaping materials (including topsoil and/or manure) or trench spoils placed in the right-of-way shall be surrounded by perimeter controls, such as gravel bags. Plastic sheets or tarps shall be placed beneath the stored material at all times, and all residual materials swept up. For any materials stored in the right-of-way, appropriate permits must be obtained.
SW-13 [Debris Containment]
All construction debris shall be contained in a secured, city approved container. Debris container shall be free of leaks and securely covered during non working hours.
SW-14 [Storm Event]
In the event of a predicted storm event, additional stormwater BMPs may be required dependent on site conditions.
SW-15 [JURMP Compliance]
The Project shall conform to the City of Del Mar “Construction Urban Runoff Requirements Manual as in accordance with the latest edition of the City of Del Mar Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP). In addition, all construction practices are subject to inspection, and must conform to the “Urban Runoff Management Plan” and corresponding “Urban Runoff Construction Site Inspection Record”.
26 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Resolution No. PC 2025-07
SSP25-002
SW-16[All Priority Development Projects with structural BMPs & O&M plans] Prior to occupancy, the Project Applicant shall provide the City of Del Mar Clean Water Manager with two (2) copies of Project “as-built” plans, stamped/signed final Stormwater Mitigation Plan, and final Operations & Maintenance Plans for inclusion of the Project in the City of Del Mar Annual Inspection Program.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
S-1 [No Encroachments of Private Improvements Located on or West of Shoreline Protection Area Line]
There shall be no encroachments of private improvements located on or west of the Shoreline Protection Area line, to include but not limited to, transitional ladders/stairs for beach access.
S-5 [Beach Access during Construction]
Vertical and lateral pedestrian and lifeguard beach access shall be maintained during construction and lateral access shall be maintained as required by the Community Services Department of the City of Del Mar, in no event shall lateral access be disrupted below the Mean High Tide Line.
S-6 [Sand Sifting]
Prior to backfilling and final approval of the project by the City, the contractor shall sift sand such that material is free of stones or lumps exceeding 1 inch in greatest dimension, or organic and unsatisfactory material. The area to be sifted is along the length of the site, from the SPA line to 30 feet west, and to elevation +4 feet MSL.
S-7 [Indemnification and Hold Harmless]
The Applicant/owners agree to indemnify, defend and save the City of Del Mar, its authorized agents, officers, representatives and employees harmless from and against any and all costs, penalties, liabilities, annoyances or loss resulting from claims or court action arising out of, or related to the issuance of this permit or the work hereunder, including but not limited to any accident, loss or damage to persons or property happening or occurring as a result of any work undertaken under the permit granted pursuant to the application.
S-8 [Equipment Removal]
The Applicant/owner agrees that if any tank, pipe, conduit, duct, tunnel or other installation of any nature or kind placed in the structure for which the permit is issued which shall at any time in the future interfere with the use, repair, improvement, widening, or change of grade of the affected public property, the Applicants, or their successors or assigns, within ten (10) working days after the receipt of a written notice from the City Manager to do so, will at their own expense either remove such tank, pipe, conduit, duct, tunnel or other installation, or subject to the approval of the City Manager, relocate them to a site which may be designated by the City Manager.
S-10 [Notice of Construction- City]
The contractor/owner hereby agree to notify the Planning Department, the Superintendent of Public Works and the Community Services Department, in writing at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the time when work will be started. Contractor/Applicant will, upon completion of the work, immediately notify the Planning Director in writing of such completion. 27 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Resolution No. PC 2025-07
SSP25-002
S-11 [Notice of Construction- Public Utility]
Contractor/owner shall notify the appropriate utility owner forty-eight (48) hours prior to performing any work on or adjacent to any public utility. All such work shall be done only with authorization and with inspection by the appropriate utility owner.
S-12 [Flag Person]
The contractor shall provide a minimum of one (1) flag person to be onsite at all times during the operation of heavy equipment. In addition, the contractor shall be subject to all safety measures required by the Community Service Department during construction.
S-13 [Staging Plan]
If the contractor/Applicant propose to stockpile equipment or materials, a staging plan shall be submitted to the City of Del Mar, in advance, for the approval of the City Manager. No material or equipment shall be stored on public streets or rights-of-ways without prior written authority from the City Manager.
S-14 [Sand Removal]
All sand removed from the beach shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the City Manager.
S-15 [Damage Repair]
A qualified consultant shall document existing conditions along the beach frontage of neighboring properties, construction access points, and adjacent roadways. Documentation shall include video, still-images, reports, and any other means necessary to accurately assess the existing conditions.
The documentation shall be reviewed by the City Engineer. Any damage caused by construction activities and/or construction traffic shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to final City of Del Mar acceptance.
S-16 [Third-party Geotechnical Review]
Prior to project implementation, the Applicant shall submit detailed construction drawings, geotechnical report, and engineering calculations for third-party review and approval by the City’s designated Geotechnical/Coastal Engineer. The third-party review shall address, but not limited to review the design scour depth, pail capacity and deformation characteristics, post-construction deflections, concrete cap specifications, and flank protection.
S-18 [Acceptance of Conditions]
The owner and permittee shall file a statement of acceptance of conditions stating that the owners/permittee have read and understand and accept the conditions listed above and shall (prior to the commencement of construction) return a signed statement accepting said conditions.
S-20 [Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit]
This PROJECT requires approval of a Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission. Prior to commencement of the project, the applicant shall provide evidence of the receipt of the Coastal Development Permit to the Director of Planning and Community Development.
28 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Resolution No. PC 2025-07
SSP25-002
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Del Mar this 12th day of August, 2025 by the following vote:
AYES: Chair Posner, Commissioner Leonard, Rittenbaum, and Spieker NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Grewal
ABSTAIN: None
_____________________________________
Philip Posner, Chair
Planning Commission Chair
City of Del Mar, California
ATTEST:
____________________________________________
Karen Brindley
Planning and Community Development Director
City of Del Mar, California
29 October 20, 2025 Item 14
City of Del Mar
Staff Report
1050 Camino Del Mar, Del Mar, California 92014 -2698
Telephone: (858) 755-9313
www.delmar.ca.us
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
AUGUST 12, 2025
APPLICATION: SSP25-002
REQUEST:
A request for Planning Commission action as follows:
1. Certify the Addendum to a previously certified Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 88092919) for the Beach Preservation Initiative in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
2. Adopt a Resolution to approve a Setback Seawall Permit to remove an existing seawall and existing rock revetment (rip rap) and construct a new seawall designed and located in conformance with standards of the Beach Overlay Zone and the City of Del Mar Local Coastal Program (LCP).; and
3. Concur with the applicant’s request to consolidate the required Coastal Development Permit for processing and permit approval by the California Coastal Commission.
APPLICANT/OWNER: Oceans Investments, LLC
OWNER’S AGENT: Walter F. Crampton, RCE, ENGEO
SITE LOCATION: 2936 Camino Del Mar
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER (APN): 299-020-12-00
COMMUNITY PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential - Beach ZONING: R1-10B
OVERLAYS: Beach Overlay Zone and Floodplain Overlay Zone
ATTACHMENT C
30 October 20, 2025 Item 14
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT: SSP25-002
AUGUST 12, 2025
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
Pursuant to requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Addendum to a previously certified Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 88092919) was prepared and is included for Planning Commission review and certification prior to any approval of the subject application. More detailed discussion is included in the environmental review section of this report.
HOUSING IMPACT:
This project would propose site improvements to a property containing an existing single-unit dwelling in the “Low Density Residential - Beach (R1-10B) Zone. Therefore, approval of the requested discretionary development application would have no impact on the City of Del Mar’s housing supply or housing affordability.
COMMUNITY PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS:
The Community Plan designates R1-10B Zone for Low Density Residential – Beach and is designed to provide for an area of one-family residential development at a density level of 1-4 units/net acre. The standards of the zone are intended to preserve an open and uncrowded character and protect the unique residential environment of Del Mar. The standards are intended to promote and protect those special amenities associated with a district of single-family homes.
The site is located within the Beach Overlay Zone and is composed of properties abutting the beach. The purpose of regulations of the Chapter is to establish and regulate the uses of the Del Mar beach area, a distinct and valuable natural resource, for the benefit of present and future generations. The regulations contained shall be administered so as to protect public access to and along the shoreline, while promoting public safety, health and welfare, and providing for the protection of private property.
The site is located within the Floodplain Overlay Zone and is composed of those properties located within the 100-year floodplains of the San Dieguito River and the Los Penasquitos Lagoon which have been identified by the Federal Insurance Administration as being subject to periodic inundation due to flooding and from off-shore high velocity wave action from coastal storm and wave inundation for beachfront properties. The purpose of the regulations of this Chapter is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare by ensuring that new development is appropriately sited and constructed so as to avoid hazards to those who will occupy the development; and to avoid damage or hazards to the surrounding area.
BACKGROUND:
In April 1988, the voters of Del Mar approved Measure D, the Beach Preservation Initiative (BPI).
The purpose of the BPI is to regulate uses of the Del Mar beach area (shoreline development) and provide regulations for the construction of new shoreline protection devices on private and public property. Construction of new shoreline protection structures, depending on their location and proximity to the Shoreline Protection Area (SPA) line, may be authorized by the City Council through the issuance of a Shoreline Protection Permit (for shoreline protective devices located seaward/west 31 October 20, 2025 Item 14
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT: SSP25-002
AUGUST 12, 2025
of the SPA line) or by the Planning Commission through the issuance of a Setback Seawall Permit (for shoreline protective devices located landward/east of the SPA line). The SPA line typically coincides with the western property line of beachfront properties. However, within this area located between 29th Street and the San Dieguito River, the western property line extends to the Mean High Tide Line. The SPA line for these properties is approximately aligned with the western extent of the seawall to the north of the project site at 2938 Sandy Lane, which was recently constructed and in conformance with the BPI (Exhibit A, aerial photo and vicinity map).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is proposing to remove existing (BPI non-compliant) shoreline protection devices (existing seawall and rock revetment) and wood access stairs and replace them with a BPI compliant seawall. The applicant has submitted project plans for the Commission’s review.
The new seawall fronting the property would be located along the full width of the property (total length of 80-feet) and would align with the landward (easterly) side of the SPA. The new seawall would not require any rip rap (rock revetment) element. The removed rock revetement would return approximately 1,000 square feet of sandy beach which would then be available for the public’s use and enjoyment. This type of seawall design complies with the requirements of the LCP, and DMMC Chapters 30.50 and 30.51 and would be similar to the majority of the more recently constructed seawalls along the Del Mar shoreline. Therefore, this seawall would require a Setback Seawall Permit and, as previously discussed, would be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission, whose action can be appealed to the City Council.
The proposed seawall is designed as a vertical sheet-pile wall with reinforced concrete cap. The steel sheet-pile would extend down to an elevation, along its vertical face, of -24.2 feet NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum). The concrete cap is a structural feature of the wall and supports the sheetpile. The cap would extend down to an elevation of +3.8 feet NGVD. The top of the concrete cap would be +14.8 feet NGVD. For reference, the 29th Street elevation is at approximately +12 feet NGVD. Typically, during normal summer beach profiles, the only portion of the wall visible would be the concrete cap. The new seawall would include an engineered cut-out with concrete steps at the northern end to allow the property owner beach access from their patio deck. A movable barrier (stop log) would allow the access to be closed off during storm events and protect the property. To the north, the applicant’s proposed seawall would connect to the existing BPI-compliant seawall at 2938 Sandy Lane. To the south, the seawall would include a 10’6” return wall to provide flank protection of 2932 Camino Del Mar, which does not have a BPI-compliant seawall.
The justifications for the location, height and design of the seawall are fully analyzed in the Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposal, which discusses the geotechnical, coastal engineering and design parameters for the project (Exhibit B). The Geotechnical Reports have been reviewed by the City’s consulting geotechnical engineers and determined to be technically acceptable.
Existing public beach access is via the western terminus of 29th Street, approximately 270-feet to the south and at the southwestern end of the Camino Del Mar Bridge/San Dieguito River approximately 32 October 20, 2025 Item 14
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT: SSP25-002
AUGUST 12, 2025
400-feet to the north. Public parking is provided on the north side of 29th Street and along Camino Del Mar.
The project site is located within the California Coastal Zone. The project requires approval of a Coastal Development Permit and Setback Seawall Permit by the City. Additionally, Coastal Commission approval of a Coastal Development Permit is required for the project components located west of the SPA line and both permit types are subject to appeal to the California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission). Therefore, the applicant has requested approval to consolidate processing of the Coastal Development Permit with the Coastal Commission, which would be reviewed and considered by the Coastal Commission subsequent to the City’s final action on SSP25-002.
PROJECT REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD:
On July 23, 2025, the Design Review Board reviewed the design aspects associated with the proposed Shoreline Protection Permit. Section 6 of the BPI Guideline states:
The Board serves as an advisory body to the Planning Commission and City Council to insure “the use of good design which encompasses the use of harmonious materials and colors.” The applicant proposes the new seawall to be of a material and color similar to the seawalls found on the beach front.
The adjacent neighbor to the south, Steven Mack at 2932 Camino Del Mar, submitted red dot correspondence via their legal counsel, Julie Hamilton for the DRB meeting on July 23, 2025. Ms.
Hamilton stated her client’s concern of potential construction impacts to his residence and requested the DRB continue the item so he can have time to discuss with the applicant to develop a protocol to protect the property from damage during construction of the seawall. Since the DRB’s purview is to review the design aesthetic of the seawall for a recommendation to the Planning Commission, the DRB had no concerns regarding the seawall design and recommended approval of the Setback Seawall Permit.
SETBACK SEAWALL PERMIT (SSP) STANDARDS OF REVIEW/PROPOSED FINDINGS The project proposes removal of an existing seawall and rock revetment and construction of a new seawall compliant with the design and location requirements of DMMC Chapters 30.50 and 30.51.
Section 30.51.040 stipulates the findings for approval of a seawall (or similar shoreline protection device). As the subject project is found to comply with all applicable standards of development, recommended findings to approve the SSP request can be made and are listed below.
A. Is required to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing principal structures or public beaches in danger from erosion and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts to local shoreline sand supply.
The proposed seawall would be designed and located in compliance with standards enumerated in Chapters 30.50 and 30.51 of the Del Mar Municipal Code and would serve 33 October 20, 2025 Item 14
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT: SSP25-002
AUGUST 12, 2025
to protect land zoned for development with residential uses. Analysis submitted by a licensed civil engineer and with concurring third-party review by a city-contracted consultant verifies that the construction of a new seawall at the subject property will not have an adverse effect on the erosion or accretion of sand either immediately ocean-ward or up and down the coast from the subject property.
B. Will minimize risks to life and property in areas of flood hazards.
The proposed seawall has been designed and would be located in accordance with standards of Chapters 30.50 and 30.51 of the Del Mar Municipal Code, ensuring that the structure would serve to minimize risks to life and property for property located within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) VE (Coastal High Hazard) Zone, properties subject to special flood hazard extending from offshore to any area subject to high velocity wave action from storms, seismic forces or tsunamis, to the greatest extent feasible.
C. Will assure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area, nor in any way substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.
The proposed seawall has been designed using contemporary standards and methods of engineering in accordance the design and location requirements of Chapters 30.50 and
30.51 of the Del Mar Municipal Code. Submitted analysis from a qualified civil engineer (and reviewed and verified by expert third-party) specifically confirms that the design of the proposed seawall, effectively protect the subject property and would not contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area.
The subject property is not located near natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.
D. Is in conformity with the certified Local Coastal Program; Subject to review and approval of Setback Seawall Permit, seawalls are a permitted use in the R1-10 Beach zoning designations for the property. The structure has been reviewed for conformance with applicable standards of the Beach Overlay Zone by the Planning and Engineering Departments as well as a third-party civil engineer, found to comply, and so would be in conformity with the City of Del Mar’s certified Local Coastal Program. The seawall would not obstruct public coastal views, nor would it impact public parking or beach access. Public access is currently provided at the 29th Street streetend approximately 270-feet to the south and at the southwest end of the Camino Del Mar Bridge/San Dieguito Lagoon approximately 400-feet to the north. Public parking is provided at the 29th Street streetend and along Camino Del Mar located between these beach access points.
E. Is in conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act;
34 October 20, 2025 Item 14
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT: SSP25-002
AUGUST 12, 2025
The proposed seawall would facilitate lateral public access that is presently reduced due to the nonconforming location of the property’s existing seawall within the Shoreline Protection Area. With removal of the existing rock revetment and seawall placed on public beach westerly of the Shoreline Protection Area (SPA) delineation line and construction of a new BPI compliant wall located landward (easterly) of the SPA line, additional sandy beach (approximately 1,000 square-feet) would be made available to the public bringing the property into compliance with the City’s Local Coastal Program, itself acting as the implementing mechanism for the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. Vertical public access is currently provided at the 29th Street street end approximately 270-feet to the south and at the southwest end of the Camino Del Mar Bridge/San Dieguito Lagoon approximately 400-feet to the north. Public parking is provided on 29th Street and along Camino Del Mar located between these beach access points in proximity to the project site.
F. Will involve materials and a design that are consistent with good engineering practices;
The proposed seawall has been designed utilizing contemporary standards and methods of engineering in accordance with Chapters 30.50 and 30.51 of the Del Mar Municipal Code and reviewed for compliance by both by the Applicant’s civil engineer, as well as the City’s chosen third-party civil engineer. Surfacing for the proposed wall would be comprised of concrete similar to and complementary of existing up down coast seawalls.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
A Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Beach Preservation Initiative was certified by Council Resolution No. 89-56 on August 21, 1989. Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), the City prepared an Addendum to the Certified Program PEIR to address removal of the existing shoreline protection devices (rock revetment and seawall) and construction of a new seawall at 2936 Camino Del Mar. Based on information contained in the Addendum, it was determined that the proposed project would not result in any new environmental impacts of seawall replacement located landward of the SPA line.
Project implementation would not result in any new significant impacts or substantially change the severity of the impacts identified in the Program EIR. The applicable mitigation measures identified in the certified Program EIR, as detailed in Section 5.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c), the Addendum does not require circulation for a public comment. However, the document was made available for public review on the City’s website at the following link: Addendum to the Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Beach Preservation Initiative Ordinance (SCH No. 88092919): 2936 Camino Del Mar Seawall Project Hard copies have been provided for review during normal business hours at Del Mar City Hall and the Del Mar Library. 35 October 20, 2025 Item 14
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT: SSP25-002
AUGUST 12, 2025
Planning Commission is asked to adopt the draft Resolution (Exhibit C) to certify the Addendum in compliance with CEQA Guidelines, approve application SSP25-002, and concur with the applicant’s request to consolidate the required Coastal Development Permit for processing and approval by the California Coastal Commission.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Ms. Hamilton’s red dot correspondence for the DRB meeting of July 23, 2025, is included as Exhibit D. Ms. Hamilton cites concerns of potential construction impacts to the residence at 2932 Camino Del Mar. Staff determined that the conditions of approval (S-15) for the permit would satisfactorily address this concern consistent with the typical standards and protocol for construction of a seawall in accordance with the certified LCP.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Project has been reviewed by the Planning Department and found to comply with applicable regulations of the Municipal Code and Local Coastal Program. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution (Exhibit C) to certify the Addendum and approve the Setback Seawall Permit SSP25-002 subject to the conditions of approval contained therein.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jean Crutchfield
Associate Planner
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Aerial Photo/Vicinity Map
Exhibit B – Coastal and Geotechnical Engineering Report (dated, February 19, 2025) – Prepared by ENGEO
Exhibit C – Draft Planning Commission Resolution PC2025-xx Exhibit D – Red Dot for DRB meeting July 23, 2025 from Julie Hamilton 36 October 20, 2025 Item 14
EXHIBIT A
37 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Copyright © 2025 by ENGEO Incorporated. This document
may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means
whatsoever, nor may it be quoted or excerpted without the express written consent of ENGEO Incorporated.
SEAWALL AND RIPRAP REMOVAL AND
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SEAWALL
LANDWARD OF CITY OF DEL MAR SPA LINE
2936 CAMINO DEL MAR
DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA
COASTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
SUBMITTED TO
Ocean Investments, LLC
2936 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
PREPARED BY
ENGEO Incorporated
February 19, 2025
PROJECT NO.
26084.000.001
EXHIBIT B
38 October 20, 2025 Item 14
GEOTECHNICAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
WATER RESOURCES
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
COASTAL/MARINE GEOTECHNICS
3890 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 573-6900 [email protected] www.engeo.com
Project No.
26084.000.001
February 19, 2025
Ocean Investments, LLC
2936 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Subject: Seawall and Riprap Removal and Construction of New Seawall Landward of City of Del Mar SPA Line
2936 Camino Del Mar, Del Mar, California
COASTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
Dear Ocean Investments:
We prepared this Coastal and Geotechnical Engineering Report for requirements of your Coastal Development Permit application package. Our study was performed to address the coastal environment affecting your property at 2936 Camino Del Mar, including wave environment, coastal hazards, and the effects of future sea level rise within the lifetime of the project.
This report summarizes our field observations and our findings pertaining to the general coastal processes in the area. A discussion of alternatives to, and design criteria for, the seawall are also provided.
This report also addresses geotechnical considerations for new seawall design and the impact of tsunamis and considers the influence of sea level rise research summarized by the Ocean Protection Council (2024), which resulted in the California Coastal Commission’s 2024 update of its 2018 Sea Level Rise Guidance document.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please call and we will be glad to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
ENGEO Incorporated
Taylor Strack, PE, GE Walter F. Crampton, GE, D.CE
awr/ts/wfc/ar
39 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Ocean Investments, LLC 2936 Camino Del Mar
26084.000.001 Coastal and Geotechnical Engineering Report i of i February 19, 2025
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1
2.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS............................................................................ 1
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................... 1
2.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND BATHYMETRY ................................................................................ 2
2.3 GEOLOGIC SETTING ........................................................................................................ 2
3.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS EVALUATION ............................................................... 2
3.1 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY ............................................................................................ 2
3.2 GROUND SURFACE RUPTURE ....................................................................................... 3
3.3 LIQUEFACTION.................................................................................................................. 3
3.4 LANDSLIDES...................................................................................................................... 3
3.5 TSUNAMIS.......................................................................................................................... 3
3.6 COASTAL HAZARDS ......................................................................................................... 3
4.0 COASTAL ENVIRONMENT................................................................................. 4
4.1 WATER LEVELS................................................................................................................. 4
4.2 WAVE CONDITIONS.......................................................................................................... 5
4.3 SHORT-TERM SEA LEVEL CHANGE ............................................................................... 6
4.4 TIDES.................................................................................................................................. 6
4.5 EL NIÑO EVENTS .............................................................................................................. 6
4.6 RELATIVE SEA LEVEL RISE............................................................................................. 6
5.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................. 7
5.1 DESIGN MEAN SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIO ................................................................. 7
5.2 DESIGN STILLWATER....................................................................................................... 9
5.3 DESIGN WAVE HEIGHT .................................................................................................. 10
5.4 WAVE RUNUP AND OVERTOPPING ANALYSIS........................................................... 11
5.5 WALL DESIGN.................................................................................................................. 13
5.6 CANTILEVERED VS. TIED-BACK VERTICAL SEAWALLS ............................................ 13
6.0 CANTILEVERED SHEET PILE DESIGN ........................................................... 14
7.0 SHEET PILE INSTALLATION CHARACTERISTICS ........................................ 15
8.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS............................................................................. 15
8.1 CANTILEVERED SHEET-PILE SEAWALL – CURRENTLY PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................................................................................... 15
8.2 SECANT PILE WALL........................................................................................................ 16
8.3 ROCK RIPRAP REVETMENT .......................................................................................... 16
8.4 “SOFT” PROTECTION...................................................................................................... 16
8.5 RETREAT ......................................................................................................................... 16
8.6 NO PROJECT = NO MAINTENANCE .............................................................................. 16
9.0 LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................... 17
SELECTED REFERENCES
FIGURES
APPENDIX A –CALCULATIONS
40 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Ocean Investments, LLC 2936 Camino Del Mar
26084.000.001 Coastal and Geotechnical Engineering Report Page | 1 February 19, 2025
1.0 INTRODUCTION
At your request, we performed a coastal study and geotechnical evaluation of the proposed removal of the non-compliant seawall and riprap and its replacement with a City of Del Mar SPA-compliant seawall along the western side of the property located at 2936 Camino Del Mar in Del Mar, California. The primary purpose of our study is to understand the coastal environment affecting the subject beachfront property and address coastal design consideration as it relates to new seawall design and construction. In addition, we also discuss current threats and risks with existing structures, which illustrate the need for the subject improvements.
For our use, we reviewed the following reports.
1. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, 2936 Camino Del Mar, Del Mar, California prepared by UES dated January 29, 2025. Project No. 4830.2400025.
2. Construction Drawings for the 2936 Camino Del Mar Seawall prepared by ENGEO Incorporated dated December 23, 2024.
2.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site is located at 2936 Camino Del Mar in Del Mar, California (Figure 1). The two-story residential structure is bounded by existing residential structures to the north and south, Camino Del Mar to the east, and by an existing seawall and revetment to the west.
EXHIBIT 2.1-1: 2936 Camino Del Mar (looking east from beach) 41 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Ocean Investments, LLC 2936 Camino Del Mar
26084.000.001 Coastal and Geotechnical Engineering Report Page | 2 February 19, 2025
The existing seawall to the west of the site is a reinforced concrete structure (shown above in Exhibit 2.1-1), with a top-of-wall elevation of approximately Elevation 16 feet (NAVD 88).
Additionally, to the west of site, an existing riprap revetment can be observed in Exhibit 2.1-1, which consists of ¼-ton to 4-ton rocks. The proposed improvements are planned to consist of demolition of the existing concrete seawall, removal of the riprap, and replacement with steel sheet piles with an architectural treatment along the exposed section. The proposed seawall is planned to have to have a top-of-wall of Elevation 17 feet (NAVD 88) and a tip of Elevation -22 feet (NAVD 88) and be located completely landward of the City SPA line.
2.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND BATHYMETRY
The project area is generally flat and contains a westerly seawall and rock revetment. Beach profile data has been surveyed for the Del Mar beach area by personnel from Scripps Institution of Oceanography since early 1974. Data collected at Range 3 (20th Street) and Range 4 (15th Street) have indicated maximum seasonal variations in beach sand elevations within the active beach area ranging from 5 to 10 feet. Our review of bathymetric charts showing the sea floor topography off the coastline in the vicinity of the site indicates a relatively uniform foreshore slope of 1 in 60, extending to several miles offshore.
2.3 GEOLOGIC SETTING
The study area is located within the low-lying lands southerly of the present mouth of the San Dieguito River. Based on our review of the Geologic Map of the San Diego 30’x60’ Quadrangle (Kennedy & Tan, 2008), we understand that the surficial geologic units underlying the site include Qop, “old paralic deposits undivided (late to middle Pleistocene)” (Figure 3). These deposits generally consist of medium dense to dense, poorly graded, fine to medium sand with occasional gravel and shell fragments. The presence of these relatively deep alluvial and nearshore sandy deposits suggests that the San Dieguito River mouth at one time discharged into the ocean across the area when sea level was lower.
The active sand beach is subject to seasonal onshore and offshore movement. In winter, heavy surf moves sand from an onshore berm and deposits it along offshore bars, resulting in lower beach elevations. Summer swell moves sand back onshore, again building up the beach. Severe storms in the late 1970s and early 1980s necessitated the placement of the existing sheet-pile wall and riprap to protect the residential structures in the area.
The study area is underlain at depth by the Eocene-age (approximately 50 million year old) Delmar Formation. This formation is exposed along the coastal bluff just north of the San Dieguito River, and likely exists below approximately Elevation -100 to -120 feet in the site vicinity.
3.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS EVALUATION
3.1 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
Our review of geologic maps and literature indicates that there are no known active or potentially active faults near or projecting toward the subject property. The site is, however, located in a seismically active region of Southern California that is subject to significant hazards from moderate to large earthquakes. Ground shaking could affect the site in the event of an earthquake on any of the active fault zones located in, or offshore of, Southern California. 42 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Ocean Investments, LLC 2936 Camino Del Mar
26084.000.001 Coastal and Geotechnical Engineering Report Page | 3 February 19, 2025
The nearest known active faults are within the Newport-Inglewood (offshore) fault zone located approximately 3.5 miles west of the site. Other active fault zones within about 30 miles of the site, which could generate ground shaking at the site, are the San Joaquin Hills, Oceanside, and Palos Verdes fault zones. A Fault and Seismicity Map is provided as Figure 4.
3.2 GROUND SURFACE RUPTURE
The project site area is not mapped as being located within an Alquist-Priolo fault zone. The potential for ground surface rupture at the site is considered negligible since no known faults cross the site.
3.3 LIQUEFACTION
The potential for liquefaction or seismically induced ground settlement due to an earthquake is considered moderate to high within the near-surface overburden soil above the relatively dense older Eocene-age deposits due to the grain-size characteristics of the sandy soil and the presence of near-surface groundwater at the site.
3.4 LANDSLIDES
Our review of geologic maps and literature indicates that the site is not mapped as being underlain by active or potential landslides, nor was any evidence of landsliding observed during our site observations.
3.5 TSUNAMIS
An online “Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning (Del Mar Quadrangle), San Diego County, California” was prepared jointly by the California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, and the University of Southern California (California Emergency Management Agency, 2009). The Tsunami Inundation Map and information are presented in Figure 5. The Tsunami Inundation Map indicates an inundation area throughout the low-lying areas of Del Mar and the San Dieguito River mouth. While exact inundation elevations are not available through the University of Southern California Tsunami Research Center, tsunami inundation elevations can be approximated by comparing topographic map elevations along the tsunami inundation limits. Using this method, we approximate that the estimated inundation elevation is on the order of about Elevation 11 feet (NGVD 29), inundating the site.
3.6 COASTAL HAZARDS
As discussed in Section 5.4 – Wave Runup and Overtopping Analysis, for most any storm condition, including the 1982-83 El Niño storms, significant overtopping of the seawall occurs.
Moreover, with 3.1 feet of sea level rise (SLR), the maximum runup is approximately Elevation 20 feet above the top of the seawall, with the horizontal jet from overtopping waves having a velocity of over 10 feet per second, with sufficient velocity to injure people in front of the buildings and wave forces that will also damage the seaward portions of the property improvements. Any structures should be a minimum of 30 feet from overtopping waves to reduce the damaging effects of these overtopping waves.
43 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Ocean Investments, LLC 2936 Camino Del Mar
26084.000.001 Coastal and Geotechnical Engineering Report Page | 4 February 19, 2025
4.0 COASTAL ENVIRONMENT
Along this portion of coastline, protection from storm surf has previously been provided mainly by the active beach, with the beach berm providing a secondary line of defense prior to storms overwashing the berm and flooding the low-lying lands adjacent to, and easterly of, Camino Del Mar. As a result of the continuing loss of beach sand (primarily due to conflicting interests allowing the construction of dams and mining of mineral aggregates on the coastal rivers), more stress has been placed on the beach berm from more frequent wave attack and from the public desiring more recreational beach area. The ultimate selection of the approved Shoreline Protection Area (SPA) line is a reaffirmation of this fact.
In evaluating the wave climate, which controls coastal erosion, considerable hindcast data is available to provide an indication of future trends and, hence, design criteria for design of coastal structures. Wave energy approaching the Southern California coastline has been relatively benign during the first 80 years of the 20th century (Seymour, et al., 1984). Extreme deep-water wave episodes exceeding 6 meters were reported on only eight occasions during the period 1900 to 1979, while the period from February 1980 through February 1984 experienced a total of ten storm events with deep-water waves exceeding 6 meters. It should be noted that the storm of January 17, 1987, produced the highest measured deep-water waves of record approaching the Southern California coast since deployment of deep-water wave gauges by Scripps Institution of Oceanography, further corroborating a more energetic wave environment.
Continued coastal erosion, in part accelerated by more energetic wave activity during the last 40 years, has subjected the site vicinity to a progressively more severe wave environment than that experienced during the preceding 50+ years, suggesting more frequent severe winters and the likelihood for more severe coastal storm damage during the design life of the proposed structure.
4.1 WATER LEVELS
Past water elevations are based on tide gauge data from La Jolla, which has been collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) since 1924. These data are applicable to the San Diego County region open-ocean coastline. The tidal and geodetic reference relationships at La Jolla (the closest station with historical data) are provided below in Table 4.1-1.
TABLE 4.1-1: Tidal Datums (Station 9410230, 1983 to 2001 Tidal Epoch)
DESCRIPTION DATUM ELEVATION
(feet MLLW)
ELEVATION
(feet NGVD 29)
ELEVATION
(feet NAVD 88)
Highest Observed Tide (11/25/2015) Max Tide 7.81 5.25 7.62 Highest Astronomical Tide HAT 7.20 4.64 7.01
Mean Higher-High Water MHHW 5.32 2.17 5.13
Mean High Water MHW 4.60 2.04 4.41
Mean Tide Level MTL 2.75 0.19 2.56
Mean Sea Level MSL 2.73 0.17 2.54
Mean Diurnal Tide Level DTL 2.66 0.10 2.47
NGVD 29 NGVD 29 2.56 0.00 2.37
Mean Low Water MLW 0.90 -1.66 0.71
North American Vertical Datum of 1988 NAVD 88 0.19 -2.37 0.00 Mean Lower-Low Water MLLW 0.00 -2.56 -0.19
44 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Ocean Investments, LLC 2936 Camino Del Mar
26084.000.001 Coastal and Geotechnical Engineering Report Page | 5 February 19, 2025
DESCRIPTION DATUM ELEVATION
(feet MLLW)
ELEVATION
(feet NGVD 29)
ELEVATION
(feet NAVD 88)
Lowest Astronomical Tide LAT -2.01 -4.44 -2.20
Lowest Observed Tide (12/17/1933) Min Tide -2.87 -5.43 -3.06 Station Datum STND -4.37 -6.93 -4.56
Great Diurnal Range GT 5.33 5.33 5.33
Mean Range of Tide MN 3.69 3.69 3.69
(Source: NOAA 2023)
Tide gauges measure total water level outside the breaker zone, which includes contributions from the tide, as well as storm surges and other factors that raise sea level over the short and long term, including the effects of El Niño.
4.2 WAVE CONDITIONS
A factor that influences coastal erosion is the wave environment. Waves provide most of the energy input that drives shoreline processes along the California coast. As illustrated in Exhibit 4.2-1, incoming waves along the Southern California coast fall into three main categories:
(1) longer period northern hemisphere swell, (2) longer period southern hemisphere swell, and (3) short-period locally generated seas. Northern hemisphere swell from the North Pacific Ocean dominates the winter wave conditions off California, while southern hemisphere swell is more dominant in the summer. Short-period seas are produced by storms sweeping through the area.
Offshore islands, shallow banks, submarine canyons, and the generally complex bathymetry off the Southern California coast greatly complicate the wave climate at the coast.
EXHIBIT 4.2-1: Map Showing Generalized Wave Exposure
for Southern California
45 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Ocean Investments, LLC 2936 Camino Del Mar
26084.000.001 Coastal and Geotechnical Engineering Report Page | 6 February 19, 2025
Coastline orientation and the islands and offshore banks greatly influence swells propagating toward shore by partially sheltering Southern California, especially from northern hemisphere swell. Exhibit 4.2-1 shows the approximate directions from which incoming swells are blocked by the islands. The coastline at the subject property faces southwest and is occasionally exposed to southern hemisphere swell. Because of the complicated effects of bathymetry and island shadowing, the wave height at the shoreline is sensitive to relatively small changes in the incoming direction of the deep ocean waves.
4.3 SHORT-TERM SEA LEVEL CHANGE
The effect of waves on the coast is highly dependent on the sea level during the wave episode.
Large waves at low sea level cause limited erosion, since they break well offshore. When episodes of large waves combine with short-term high sea level from tides and other factors, rapid retreat may occur along vulnerable coastlines.
4.4 TIDES
Tides are caused by the gravitational pull of astronomical bodies, primarily the moon and sun, on the Earth. Tides along the Southern California coast have a semi-diurnal inequality. On an annual average basis, the mean high tide line is at approximately Elevation 4 feet (NAVD 88), with the highest observed tide recorded in the year 2005 during an El Niño year at an Elevation 7.62 feet (NAVD 88), which was recorded at the La Jolla station gauge.
4.5 EL NIÑO EVENTS
Large-scale warming periods in the Pacific Ocean occur episodically and are related to the El Niño phenomenon. These meteorological events are characterized by low atmospheric pressures and persistent onshore winds. During these events, average sea levels in Southern California can rise up to 0.5 foot above normal. Tidal data indicates that seven episodes have occurred since 1905.
These events occurred in 1914, 1930 through 1931, 1941, 1957 through 1959, 1982 through 1983, 1997 through 1998, and 2015 through 2016. Mild El Niño-type conditions were also reported in 1988 and 1992. Further analysis suggests that these events have an average return period of 14 years, with 0.2-foot tidal departures lasting for 2 to 3 years. The added probability of experiencing more severe winter storms during El Niño periods increases the likelihood of coincident storm waves and higher storm surge.
4.6 RELATIVE SEA LEVEL RISE
Sea level rise (SLR) is not the same everywhere around the world. Because of local differences in tectonic uplift, subsidence caused by oil, gas, and groundwater extraction, and saltwater intrusion, the land itself is moving vertically. The difference between the local land motion and global rise of sea level gives the relative SLR that will determine the magnitude of local SLR impacts. Vertical land motion in some studies would identify this relative rate from local tide gauges.
Past and possible future changes in mean sea level (MSL) are of interest in design and planning for coastal cities, as well as for engineering activities on the coast. Exhibit 4.6-1 shows the relative sea level trend observed at the La Jolla tide gauge from 1924 to 2024. These data are routinely tabulated by the NOAA as part of their national tide gaging program (Flick et al., 2003). 46 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Ocean Investments, LLC 2936 Camino Del Mar
26084.000.001 Coastal and Geotechnical Engineering Report Page | 7 February 19, 2025
EXHIBIT 4.6-1: NOAA’s Relative SLR Trend at La Jolla Tide Gauge The relative sea level trend is 2.02 millimeters/year (mm/year) with a 95 percent confidence interval of +/- 0.22 mm/yr based on monthly MSL data from 1924 to 2024, which is equivalent to a change of 0.66 foot in 100 years.
5.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 DESIGN MEAN SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIO
The California Coastal Commission recognizes the Ocean Protection Council's (OPC) State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance 2024 Update as the current best available science on SLR projections for California. The new OPC guidance details five mean sea level rise (MSLR) projections for 14 tide gauges along the California coast. The considered global MSLR scenarios include the following.
• Low (0.9 foot of MSLR by 2100)
• Intermediate-Low (1.6 feet of MSLR by 2100)
• Intermediate (3.1 feet of MSLR by 2100)
• Intermediate-High (4.8 feet of MSLR by 2100)
• High (6.6 feet of MSLR by 2100)
OPC (2024) presents results for each tide gauge location in a series of tables that specify several time sequences of global mean sea level (GMSL) from 2020 through 2150. The MSLR projections use the year 2000 as the base year, and project MSLR in specified future years relative to MSL in 2000. The OPC (2024) MSL elevation projections for La Jolla from 2020 through 2150 are provided in Table 5.1-1 below.
47 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Ocean Investments, LLC 2936 Camino Del Mar
26084.000.001 Coastal and Geotechnical Engineering Report Page | 8 February 19, 2025
TABLE 5.1-1: Projected Sea Level Rise (in feet) for La Jolla
YEAR LOW INTERMEDIATE -LOW INTERMEDIATE INTERMEDIATE -HIGH HIGH 2020 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3
2030 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5
2040 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
2050 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.3
2060 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.6 2.0
2070 0.7 1.0 1.4 2.3 3.0
2080 0.8 1.2 1.8 3.1 4.1
2090 0.9 1.4 2.4 3.9 5.3
2100 0.9 1.6 3.1 4.8 6.6
2110 1.0 1.8 3.8 5.7 7.9
2120 1.1 2.0 4.4 6.4 9.0
2130 1.2 2.2 4.9 7.1 9.9
2140 1.2 2.4 5.5 7.6 10.9
2150 1.3 2.6 6.0 8.2 11.8
Source: Ocean Protection Council, 2024
Median values of Sea Level Scenarios, in feet, for each decade from 2020 to 2150, with a baseline of 2000. All median scenario values incorporate the local estimate of vertical land motion.
Five different global MSLR scenarios are presented for each of the 14 NOAA tide gauge locations along the California coast. These scenarios incorporate the local estimate of vertical land motion into the relative SLR projection. For this project location, the Intermediate SLR scenario projects
3.1 feet of SLR, with a 5 percent probability of exceedance by the year 2100. The Intermediate-High SLR scenario projects 4.8 feet of SLR, with a 0.1 percent probability of exceedance by the year 2100. Accordingly, we have included the 1982-83 El Niño storm season, which is considered to be the 100-year design level event without SLR, along with these two SLR scenarios in our evaluation to define the design wave environment.
In addition to the Ocean Protection Council’s (OPC) 2024 guidance document, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) updated its Sea Level Policy Guidance document with a Science Update dated November 13, 2024. This 2024 document updates the CCC’s 2018 document with additional findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and incorporates much of the 2024 OPC State of California Sea Level Rise 2024 Update.
To provide additional perspective for the design MSLR scenario, we have reproduced as Exhibit 5.1-1, the CCC’s five suggested scenarios through the year 2100 from the CCC’s 2024 Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance Document, ranging from the lowest at 0.9 foot, to the highest at
6.6 feet. On Exhibit 5.1-1, we have also plotted NOAA’s 100-year record of SLR for La Jolla (Exhibit 4.6-1) at the relatively uniform rate of 2.02 mm/year, which from 2000 through 2024 has resulted in 4.8 centimeters (cm) of SLR in the past 24 years, which is relatively similar to the CCC’s 2024 lowest MSLR scenario.
48 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Ocean Investments, LLC 2936 Camino Del Mar
26084.000.001 Coastal and Geotechnical Engineering Report Page | 9 February 19, 2025
EXHIBIT 5.1-1: Modified California Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance Document, Adopted November 13, 2024
The real significance of the various MSLR scenarios is the design breaking wave height and the overtopping and damage to the existing structure. We have analyzed the 1982-83 El Niño storms considered to be the 100-year design event without SLR, along with the 3.1 and 4.8-foot SLR scenarios recommended by the OPC and have included these in our wave height and wave runup and overtopping calculations.
5.2 DESIGN STILLWATER
The maximum design stillwater level (SWL) is critical to any wave analyses, as it determines the wave energy that can be propagated into the shoreline, eventually impacting and overtopping structures. It is the deep-water wave height superimposed upon the extreme SWL that defines the joint probability of the design storm condition, creating the largest wave forces on structures, along with the maximum runup and overtopping volume. In addition to tidal fluctuation, water levels at the shoreline are influenced by storm surge, wave setup, and surf beat. These influences, combined with the astronomical high tide, allow offshore storm waves to run up the elevated back beach and impact coastal structures. For the Del Mar area, excluding SLR, the likely maximum 100-year design SWL would be on the order of 7.62 feet (NAVD 88), not including wave runup.
To account for SLR, we have used the criteria provided in Table 5.1-1, evaluating two different SLR scenarios of 3.1 and 4.8 feet by the year 2100. We have also evaluated the 100-year design storm in the absence of SLR, assumed to be the 1982-83 El Niño storm season. -1
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 Sea Level Rise (feet)
Year
NOAA Historical Sea Levels
OPC 24 Low.
OPC 24 Int. Low
OPC 24 Int.
OPC 24 Int. High
OPC 24 High
Estimated Trend 2.02mm/yr
49 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Ocean Investments, LLC 2936 Camino Del Mar
26084.000.001 Coastal and Geotechnical Engineering Report Page | 10 February 19, 2025
5.3 DESIGN WAVE HEIGHT
Selection of a design wave requires consideration of such factors as the maximum anticipated deep-water wave height and the wave period that can be expected to occur over the life of the structure. As large deep-water waves approach a coastline, friction on the rising sea floor eventually causes the wave to collapse or break. This wave-breaking depth is equal to about
1.3 times the wave height. During periods of extreme high tides, and in the absence of the protective back beach, small swells (possibly 3 to 5 feet in height) may actually maintain most of their wave energy and break directly on the coast. During periods of heavy storms, deep-water waves, tens of feet high, break quite a distance offshore, reform as small waves, and eventually impart a portion of their original wave energy onto the coastal bluff.
Wave conditions at the site depend critically on the water level and corresponding beach elevation at the base of the bluff. Consequently, a design SWL or a range of SWLs must be established in determining wave forces on coastal bluffs.
The foreshore slope also affects the height of a particular design wave approaching the coast.
For a given beach, a steeper foreshore slope allows a larger wave to break closer to shore.
We used a contemporary design SWL of 7.62 feet (NAVD 88) determined from Table 4.1-1 above), which is the highest observed tide reported. We then added 2.02 mm/year from 2001 through 2025 to account for the contemporary rate of SLR from the year 2001 (the latest NOAA tidal epoch). This results in an additional design water level of 0.16 feet for a design stillwater of Elevation 7.78 feet (NAVD 88).
Our evaluation of the maximum design wave for the seawall is based on criteria set forth in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Shore Protection Manual (1984 Edition). For purposes of computing the maximum wave height, we have also considered a design scour elevation in front of the structure of +2.37 and -1.63 feet (NAVD 88) (0 feet and -4 feet NAVD 29), which is discussed in further detail in Section 5.4, and a foreshore slope of 1 to 60. The three design SWLs were selected as described below.
• Case 1 represents the 100-year storm event with an estimated design SWL of 8.28 feet with a design scour of Elevation 2.37 feet (NAVD 88).
• Case 2 represents the Intermediate SLR scenario, which has an expected exceedance probability of 5 percent and a design SWL of 11.38 feet in the year 2100. In addition, this case assumes a design scour of Elevation 2.37 feet (NAVD 88). • Case 3 represents the Intermediate-High SLR scenario, which has an expected exceedance probability of 0.1 percent and a design SWL of 13.08 feet in the year 2100. In addition, this case assumes a design scour of Elevation 2.37 feet (NAVD 88).
Additionally, Cases 4 to 6 are the same conditions as noted in Cases 1 to 3, with the exception of a higher design scour of Elevation -1.63 feet (NAVD 88). All of the above cases also assume an El Niño temporary SLR of 0.5 foot.
50 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Ocean Investments, LLC 2936 Camino Del Mar
26084.000.001 Coastal and Geotechnical Engineering Report Page | 11 February 19, 2025
The maximum wave height (tabulated below) that can reach the structure occurs during the period when the maximum depth of standing water exists in front of the structure, which includes both the maximum SWL combined with the maximum scour at the base of the structure. The maximum water depths at the base of the structure, ds, for the three design scenarios considered are tabulated below. We have also assumed a wave period of 18 seconds. The resultant maximum breaking wave height occurs when a specific deep-water wave is allowed to shoal and break directly upon the structure. Using the design criteria set forth in the Army Corps of Engineers Shore Protection Manual, the design breaking wave height, Hb, is slightly less than ds, also tabulated below.
TABLE 5.3-1: Design SLR and SWL for Wave Height Analysis DESIGN
LOADING
CONDITION
ASSUMED MSLR
(feet)
EL NIÑO
TEMPORARY SLR
(feet)
DESIGN SWL
(feet, NAVD 88)
DESIGN SCOUR
ELEVATION
(feet, NAVD88)
ds
(feet)
Hb,
ft
Case 1 0 0.5 8.28 2.37 7.32 7.0
Case 2 3.1 0.5 11.38 2.37 10.88 10.3
Case 3 4.8 0.5 13.08 2.37 12.79 12.0
Case 4 0 0.5 8.28 -1.63 11.90 11.3
Case 5 3.1 0.5 11.38 -1.63 15.40 14.5
Case 6 4.8 0.5 13.08 -1.63 17.30 16.3
5.4 WAVE RUNUP AND OVERTOPPING ANALYSIS
Wave runup is defined as the rush of water up a beach or coastal structure that is caused by, or associated with, breaking waves. The maximum runup is the highest vertical elevation that the runup will reach above the SWL. If the maximum runup is higher than the top of a coastal structure, the excess represents overtopping. Runup elevation depends on the incident wave characteristics, the beach profile, including profile elevation, and other factors. Most wave runup and overtopping analyses are based upon equations and nomographs provided in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Shore Protection Manual (SPM, USACE, 1984), the Internet-based Coastal Engineering Manual (Part VI-Chapter 5, 2022), and the more recent Handbook of Coastal and Ocean Engineering by Kim (2010).
Previous studies of the coastal processes in the site vicinity is provided in the July 22, 1983, "Preliminary Engineering Study, Beach and River Protective Devices, for the City of Del Mar," report prepared by R.M. Noble and Associates. From their study, a design scour of Elevation -4 feet (NGVD 29) (-1.63 feet NAVD 88) was considered.
The following definition sketch for both wave runup and overtopping, reproduced from the 1984 SPM, graphically illustrates the point of maximum wave runup for a particular design condition. 51 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Ocean Investments, LLC 2936 Camino Del Mar
26084.000.001 Coastal and Geotechnical Engineering Report Page | 12 February 19, 2025
EXHIBIT 5.4-1: Definition Sketch: Wave Runup and Overtopping It should also be clear from the sketch that any wave runup exceeding the height of the structure then represents overtopping.
We evaluated both the maximum height of runup and volume of overtopping based on the 2010 Handbook of Coastal and Ocean Engineering (Kim, 2010) for the six design scenarios assumed above. We also assumed a wave period of 18 seconds assuming storms out of the west, which results in the maximum design wave runup elevations and calculated overtopping volumes, as tabulated below. Summary calculations are also provided in Appendix A.
TABLE 5.4-1: Design Wave Runup Results
DESIGN
CONDITION
ASSUMED
SLR in
2100
(feet)
DESIGN SWL
(feet, NAVD 88)
ds
(feet)
WAVE
RUNUP
HEIGHT
(feet)
MAXIMUM
DESIGN WAVE
RUNUP
ELEVATION
(feet)
OVERTOPPING
VOLUME
(liters/second per m)
Case 1 0 8.28 7.32 11.3 21.0 16
Case 2 3.1 11.38 10.88 16.8 30.0 588
Case 3 4.8 13.08 12.79 19.5 34.7 1844
Case 4 0 8.28 11.90 18.4 28.6 244
Case 5 3.1 11.38 15.40 23.5 37.3 1795
Case 6 4.8 13.08 17.30 26.4 42.1 3960
In selecting both the design wave height and the anticipated design wave runup and overtopping, the controlling criteria is the design maximum SWL combined with scoured Elevation 0 feet or -4 feet (NGVD 29) (2.37 feet to -1.63 feet NAVD88). Ultimately, the design SLR sets the design criteria, with OPC 2024, and hence the CCC, recommending that all designs consider the intermediate risk aversion scenario of 3.1 feet of SLR by the year 2100 with a corresponding probability of exceedance of 5 percent.
52 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Ocean Investments, LLC 2936 Camino Del Mar
26084.000.001 Coastal and Geotechnical Engineering Report Page | 13 February 19, 2025
5.5 WALL DESIGN
The existing seawall has a crown elevation around Elevation 16 feet (NAVD 88). All cases have a maximum design wave runup elevation in excess of the top of the existing seawall, resulting in overtopping for all cases. Even in the absence of any SLR, severe storms may result in scour of the soil supporting the wall foundation to an approximately Elevation -1.63 feet (NAVD 88), which corresponds to a previously established scour elevation as discussed above. Based on the likely overtopping from the above scenarios, the owner should expect future wave runup hazards with the planned top of wall of Elevation 17 feet (NAVD 88).
5.6 CANTILEVERED VS. TIED-BACK VERTICAL SEAWALLS
As indicated in the 1983 Noble report, a vertical seawall is generally the configuration of coastal protection preferred by most regulatory agencies. Additionally, a vertical seawall is usually less disruptive and occupies only a fraction of the space taken up by a stone revetment. Vertical seawalls incorporating a properly designed wave deflector substantially reduce the wave runup and overtopping more typically encountered with stone revetments.
Vertical seawalls may be designed as either cantilevered or tied-back structures. Wall loads increase roughly with the square of the unsupported height, and cantilevered walls are typically limited to unsupported wall heights on the order of 15 feet.
Vertical sheet-pile walls are loaded by the active earth pressure (including any surcharge loads) behind the wall. Resistance to overturning is developed through deflection in the wall, which mobilizes the reaction of the soil into which the wall is embedded. The resisting pressure applied by the soil to a sheet-pile wall depends upon the relative stiffness of the pile and soil, as well as the depth of embedment.
If sufficient embedment is not available, overturning forces must then be resisted by a tied-back system utilizing tie rods attached to concrete anchors some distance behind the wall. Schematic designs were provided for both cantilevered and tied-back vertical seawalls in the 1983 Noble report. Both options were provided in the report because relatively dense formational deposits exist at shallow depths along portions of the Del Mar coastline, eliminating the use of cantilevered walls in these areas. Cantilevered vertical walls are usually less expensive than tied-back walls, are easier to construct, and are generally less susceptible to a potential failure. One disadvantage, however, is the post-construction deflections that occur after the beach has been scoured down to the design scour level, allowing the wall to rotate outward; a necessary requisite to mobilize the strength of the soil fronting the wall.
Actual wall deflection is a function of the active earth pressure loading the wall, and is very sensitive to the differential water level on both sides of the wall. An important consideration then becomes the effect of severe wave overtopping during a major storm that may tend to saturate the wall backfill, with a worst-case condition being total hydrostatic pressures developing within the backfill behind the wall. In considering this worst-case design scenario, one must address the water surface elevation in front of the wall, and ultimately the differential in water surface elevations in front of and behind the wall. The most severe wave overtopping will occur during the highest tides, thereby reducing the differential water level on both sides of the wall. The worst-case design scenario would be to assume full hydrostatic conditions behind the wall and a water surface of Elevation -1.63 feet (NAVD 88) in front of the wall (equal to the design scour depth). This worst-case condition is highly unlikely, however, in view of the fact that severe wave overtopping can only occur during tidal highs when significant storm waves can actually reach and break upon the structure.
53 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Ocean Investments, LLC 2936 Camino Del Mar
26084.000.001 Coastal and Geotechnical Engineering Report Page | 14 February 19, 2025
Considering the type of seawalls used both north and south of the subject property, in addition to the advantages mentioned above, it is our opinion that a cantilevered vertical sheet-pile wall is still the most desirable type of seawall for the subject site.
6.0 CANTILEVERED SHEET PILE DESIGN
Vertical seawalls are loaded by the active earth pressure (including any surcharge loads) behind the wall. Resistance to overturning of cantilevered vertical seawalls is developed through deflection in the seawall, which mobilizes the reaction of the soil into which the sheet-pile wall is embedded. The resisting pressure applied by the soil to a pile depends upon the relative stiffness of the pile and soil, as well as depth of embedment.
Failure of a laterally loaded pile takes place either when the maximum bending moment in the loaded pile reaches the ultimate or yield resistance of the pile section, or when the lateral earth pressures reach the ultimate lateral resistance of the soil along the total length of the pile. For purposes of definition, failure of piles with relatively “short embedment” takes place when the pile rotates as a unit with respect to a point located close to its toe. Failures of piles with relatively “long embedment” occur when the maximum bending moment applied to the pile exceeds the yield resistance of the pile section and a plastic hinge forms at the section of maximum bending moment. Investigators have suggested that piles be grouped relative to their dimensionless depth of embedment, L/T, where:
L = embedment length of the pile in feet, and
T =
5 1
f
EI
(divided by 12 to convert inches to feet)
The quantity EI is the stiffness of the pile section, and f (coefficient of variation of soil modulus) for the on-site soil would be on the order of 8 pounds per cubic inch (pci). The actual modulus value is approximately 32 pci (however, this value must be reduced by a factor of 4 to account for the case of full bridging of isolated piles resulting from the continuous wall). Short piles are generally defined as L/T being less than 2.0, and long piles are generally defined as L/T being larger than 4.0. Thus, minimum pile embedment was selected based on an L/T equal to 4.0 to develop the full moment capacity and minimum deflection of the pile.
Design loading conditions were based on active earth pressures and a combination of hydrostatic pressures evaluating three separate loading conditions. The beach sand fronting the wall appear to have an average relative density of approximately 75 percent, and a porosity on the order of 40 percent. Thus, active wall pressures for an unsaturated backfill, assuming all pore space is essentially filled with water but not saturated (a condition that may exist after considerable wave overtopping), would be approximately 37 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Active wall pressures for buoyant soil would be approximately 18 pcf, and active wall pressures for a saturated backfill subjected to full hydrostatic conditions would be approximately 82 pcf (64 pcf [weight of sea water] + 18 pcf).
In order to determine the structural requirements for the proposed sheet-pile wall, we have evaluated the soil-induced moment, shear, and deflection of a vertical wall using the elastic theory approach developed by Matlock and Reese (1962). Calculations are also provided in Appendix A. 54 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Ocean Investments, LLC 2936 Camino Del Mar
26084.000.001 Coastal and Geotechnical Engineering Report Page | 15 February 19, 2025
We have selected a PZ-35 Grade 50 steel sheet pile having a minimum yield stress of 50,000 psi.
A corresponding minimum required tip elevation for the PZ-35 would be Elevation -22 feet (NAVD 88).
It should be noted, post-storm wall deflections can be fairly significant, resulting in ground surface settlements immediately behind the wall approaching that of the horizontal wall deflection. If it is desired to minimize future post-storm wall deflections, the steel sheet-pile wall can be pre-loaded or pre-deflected by excavating down as deep as practical in front of the wall, allowing the wall to deflect and the soil behind the wall to settle into the deflected wall shape.
7.0 SHEET PILE INSTALLATION CHARACTERISTICS
Sheet piles are generally installed through the use of an impact hammer, by vibratory techniques, or by hydraulically jetting piles down to design tip elevation (jetting of piles still requires dynamic driving for the last several feet to redensify soil loosened by the jetting process). Displacement piles, as proposed in the 1983 Noble report, will likely be difficult to drive to the depths indicated in that report, or as recommended herein. Hydraulic jetting requires a water source and may result in some lost ground, which may adversely affect the adjacent improvements to the east. Vibratory techniques are most effective when using a non-displacement pile, such as a steel sheet pile.
Steel sheet piles are economical and facilitate installation, minimizing disruptive construction activities on the beach.
It should be noted that any of the installation techniques described above will meet refusal on any existing riprap left in place. The contractor should be aware of the presence of existing riprap extending to an undetermined depth along the sheet pile alignment, which will require removal prior to sheet pile installation.
Regardless of installation technique, some vibration-induced damage may occur in nearby structures. It is important to realize that installation of a conventional sheet-pile wall in close proximity to existing structures will likely cause damage, with the intensity of damage becoming progressively more severe with proximity to the structure. When utilizing the United States Bureau of Mines Damage Criteria, and anticipated human response criteria as presented by John Wiss (1981), it is reasonable to conclude that the installation of conventional sheet-pile walls will cause damage to structures within 12 feet of the alignment and; for structures within 4 feet of the alignment, severe damage should be anticipated.
8.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
An analysis of alternatives to the currently proposed project was completed. The proposed project consists of the construction of a new cantilevered sheet-pile wall to perform as a coastal protection structure. The following alternatives were considered.
8.1 CANTILEVERED SHEET-PILE SEAWALL – CURRENTLY PROPOSED PROJECT A new sheet-pile wall would consist of vibratory-installed steel sheet piles with a concrete cap. To comply with City guidelines, the front face of the seawall provides a visual marker to indicate fairly significant beach erosion and for visual consistency. This compliant seawall would have a top-of-wall of Elevation 17.0 feet, with the seaward edge of the proposed concrete cap located behind the City’s SPA line. As part of this project, the existing seawall and all riprap rock fronting 55 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Ocean Investments, LLC 2936 Camino Del Mar
26084.000.001 Coastal and Geotechnical Engineering Report Page | 16 February 19, 2025
the current seawall would be removed. The new seawall would be entirely landward of the City’s SPA line.
8.2 SECANT PILE WALL
A secant pile wall is formed by constructing overlapping concrete piles. A benefit of the secant pile wall is that the concrete wall is more resistant to corrosion and can be placed along most any alignment, and thus easily constructed behind the SPA line. This alternative would have no impact on the amount of usable beach, similar to the cantilevered sheet-pile wall alternative.
8.3 ROCK RIPRAP REVETMENT
As with seawalls, rock riprap is a conventional structural measure for mitigating marine erosion.
Although arguably having some value as an alternative for stabilization, it has a variety of negative environmental impacts, including visual aesthetics and encroachment into the active beach face.
Additionally, this alternative, as with the existing conditions, would extend the revetment beyond the SPA line, requiring the property owners to obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission, and incur the additional expense of a significant mitigation fee.
8.4 “SOFT” PROTECTION
“Soft” protection might include sand replenishment, dune creation, and native plantings on the beach in front of the westerly facing beach property. These alternatives would provide habitat to wildlife, would add sand to the beach, and would appear more natural. “Soft” protection alternatives were rejected for multiple reasons. The property owners own only the narrow strip of land where the seawall exists. This strip would not provide enough area to implement any “soft” form of protection. Such projects would have to be implemented on a broader community-wide basis for the beach in front of the properties. “Soft” protection would require large amounts of manpower, large volumes of sand, and continuous monitoring and maintenance, making it an extremely burdensome undertaking for a private entity. Note that SANDAG performs irregular sand replenishment projects on this beach, which we understand the property owners fully support, but these sand replenishment projects do not eliminate the need for shore protection in the event of an extreme high tide or storm surge. Dunes and vegetation did not exist naturally on this beach before development, suggesting that they might be difficult to establish and maintain artificially. Furthermore, dunes and vegetation would negatively impact the recreational value of the heavily used beach. More importantly, “soft” protection strategies are not likely to provide sufficient protection against flooding of the existing structure at 2936 Camino Del Mar.
8.5 RETREAT
A retreat alternative would mean removing the existing house and relocating it inland some undetermined distance. A retreat option is not feasible because sufficient area is not available on the property to relocate the structure and, in any event, because the entire project site is at a low elevation, merely relocating the protective structure would not eliminate the threat of inundation to the entire area, public streets, surrounding homes, and adjacent properties.
8.6 NO PROJECT = NO MAINTENANCE
Although this alternative may be considered, it is our opinion that it is not an acceptable option.
Failure of the existing seawall, partially or in its entirety, would not only expose the existing residential structure to inundation and damage from marine flooding, but the failure would also 56 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Ocean Investments, LLC 2936 Camino Del Mar
26084.000.001 Coastal and Geotechnical Engineering Report Page | 17 February 19, 2025
present an unacceptable public health and safety hazard to both the beach-going public and the low elevation properties east of Camino Del Mar, all of which would experience flooding as occurred during the 1983 storms. Additionally, retaining the existing non-compliant seawall and riprap seaward of the SPA line would not advance the goals and objectives of the SPA to remove encroachments and enhance public access to and along the shoreline and beach.
9.0 LIMITATIONS
Coastal engineering and the earth sciences are characterized by uncertainty. Professional judgments represented herein are based partly on our evaluation of the technical information gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construction, and partly on our general experience. Our engineering work and judgments rendered meet the current professional standards and there is no warranty, express or implied. There are risks of earth movement and property damage inherent in buildings on or with earth materials. We are unable to eliminate all risks; therefore, we are unable to guarantee or warrant the results of our services.
This report is based upon field and other conditions discovered at the time of report preparation.
We developed this report with limited subsurface exploration data. We assumed that the subsurface exploration data are representative of the actual subsurface conditions in the vicinity of the project location. If unexpected conditions are encountered, ENGEO must be notified immediately to review these conditions and provide additional and/or modified recommendations, as necessary.
57 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Ocean Investments, LLC 2936 Camino Del Mar
26084.000.001 Coastal and Geotechnical Engineering Report February 19, 2025
SELECTED REFERENCES
California Coastal Commission. 2018. Science Update of Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance – Interpretive Guidelines for Addressing Sea Level Rise in Local Coastal Programs and Coastal Development Permits, San Francisco, CA: California Coastal Commission, 307 p. http://www.coastal.ca.gov/climate/slrguidance.html.
California Coastal Commission. 2015. Draft Sea-Level Rise Policy Guidance, Public Review Draft, 178 p. http://www.coastal.ca.gov/climate/slrguidance.html.
California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey and the University of Southern California. 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Encinitas Quadrangle, San Diego County, California. June 1, 2009.
Church, J.A. and White, N.J. 2006. A 20th Century Acceleration in Global Sea-Level Rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602.
CLIMAP. 1976. The Surface of the Ice-Age Earth: Science, 191, pp. 1131-1137.
Flick, R.E., Murray, J.F., and Ewing, L.C. 2003. Trends in United States Tidal Datum Statistics and Tide Range: Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering: American Society of Civil Engineering, 129(4), pp. 155-164.
Flick, R.E. and Cayan, D.R. 1984. Extreme Sea Levels on the Coast of California, Proceedings of the 19th International Conference of Coastal Engineering: American Society of Civil Engineering, pp. 886-898.
Jevrejeva, S., Moore, J.C., Grinsted, A., and Woodworth, P.L. 2008. Recent Global Sea Level Acceleration Started Over 200 Years Ago: Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L08715.
Kim, Y.C. 2010. Handbook of Coastal and Ocean Engineering: World Scientific Publishing Co., 1192 p.
Melillo, J.M., Richmond, T.C., and Yohe, G.W., eds. 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 841 p.
Nerem, R. S., Leuliette, E., and Cazenave, A. 2006. Present-Day Sea-Level Change: A Review:
C. R. Geoscience, 338, pp. 1077-1083.
National Research Council. 2012. Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future, Report by the Committee on Sea Level Rise in California, Oregon, and Washington. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 250 p.
NOAA Tides and Currents, La Jolla, CA. 2018. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov, accessed June 2023.
Ocean Protection Council. 2018. State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance, 2018 Update, Sacramento, CA: California Natural Resources Agency, 84 p. http://www.opc.ca.gov/updating-californias-sea-level-rise-guidance/ 58 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Ocean Investments, LLC 2936 Camino Del Mar
26084.000.001 Coastal and Geotechnical Engineering Report SELECTED REFERENCES (Continued)
February 19, 2025
Tekmarine, Inc. 1987. Oceanside Littoral Cell, Preliminary Sediment Budget Report, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CCSTWS-87-4.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2022. EM 1110-2-1100, Coastal Engineering Manual.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2015. Encinitas-Solana Beach Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Integrated Feasibility Report & Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR), San Diego County, California.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1991. State of the Coast Report, San Diego Region, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Vol. I - Main Report. Final September 1991.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1984. Shore Protection Manual, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS, Vol. I and II.
59 October 20, 2025 Item 14
FIGURES
FIGURE 1: Vicinity Map
FIGURE 2: Site Plan
FIGURE 3: Geologic Map
FIGURE 4: Fault and Seismicity Map
FIGURE 5: Tsunami Inundation Map
60 October 20, 2025 Item 14
COPYRIGHT @ 2025 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY IT BE QUOTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED.
ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR PATH: G:\DRAFTING\PROJECTS\_26000 TO 27999\26084\26084000001\GEX\26084000001 - GEX.APRX LAYOUT: 01. VICINITY 8.5 X 11 PORTRAIT USER: NCLOUGH
SCALE: AS SHOWN 1 NWC TJS
26084.000.001
DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA
2936 CAMINO DEL MAR
VICINITY MAP
SITE
SITE
NO SCALE
BASEMAP SOURCE: ENGEO INC, ESRI WORLD TOPO MAP
0 1,000 2,000
FEET
FIGURE NO.
DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:
PROJECT NO. :
61 October 20, 2025 Item 14
EXPLANATION PROJECT SITE CITY OF DEL MAR SPA LINE SITE C GOOGLE EARTH SITE PHOTO 2936 CAMINO DEL MAR DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 26084.000.001 AS SHOWN Expect Excellence 2 N 0 FEET 60 62 October 20, 2025 Item 14
63 October 20, 2025 Item 14
IMPERIAL
COUNTY
LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
ORANGE COUNTY
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
SAN
BERNARDINO
COUNTY
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
LOS
ANGELES
COUNTY
LOS
ANGELES
COUNTY
SITE
EXPLANATION
HISTORIC EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS
Magnitude 5-6
Magnitude 6-7
Magnitude 7+
Historic Blind Thrust Fault Zone
QUATERNARY FAULTS 2020
Based on time of most recent surface
deformation
Historical (<150 Years), Well
Constrained Location
Historical (<150 Years), Moderately
Constrained Location
Historical (<150 Years), Inferred
Location
Latest Quaternary (<15,000 Years),
Well Constrained Location
Latest Quaternary (<15,000 Years),
Moderately Constrained Location
Latest Quaternary (<15,000 Years),
Inferred Location
Late Quaternary (<130,000 Years),
Well Constrained Location
Late Quaternary (<130,000 Years),
Moderately Constrained Location
Late Quaternary (<130,000 Years),
Inferred Location
Middle And Late Quaternary
(<750,000 Years), Well Constrained
Location
Middle And Late Quaternary
(<750,000 Years), Moderately
Constrained Location
Middle And Late Quaternary
(<750,000 Years), Inferred Location
Undifferentiated Quaternary(<1.6
Million Years), Well Constrained
Location
Undifferentiated Quaternary(<1.6
Million Years), Moderately
Constrained Location
Undifferentiated Quaternary(<1.6
Million Years), Inferred Location
Class B (Various Age), Well
Constrained Location
Class B (Various Age), Moderately
Constrained Location
Class B (Various Age), Inferred
Location
0 7.5 15
MILES
FIGURE NO.
DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:
ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR
SCALE: AS SHOWN
COPYRIGHT @ 2025 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY IT BE QUOTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED.
PATH: G:\DRAFTING\MANAGEMENT\GIS\GEX\GEX UPDATE\GIS FIGURE TEMPLATE.APRX LAYOUT: 04. FAULT&SEISMICITY 11 X 17 LANDSCAPE USER: NCLOUGH BASE MAP SOURCE: SANGIS, CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS, ESRI, TOMTOM, GARMIN, SAFEGRAPH, FAO, METI/NASA, USGS, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, EPA, NPS, USFWS,
ESRI, GEBCO, GARMIN, NATURALVUE
COLOR HILLSHADE IMAGE BASED ON THE NATIONAL ELEVATION DATA SET (NED) AT 30 METER RESOLUTION U.S.G.S. QUATERNARY FAULT DATABASE, 2020
C.G.S. HISTORIC EARTHQUAKE DATABASE 4
NWC TJS
26084.000.001
DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA
2936 CAMINO DEL MAR
FAULT AND SEISMICITY MAP PROJECT NO.:
64 October 20, 2025 Item 14
5 DRAWN BY: NWC CHECKED BY: TJS
PROJECT NO. : 26084.000.001
DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA
2936 CAMINO DEL MAR
SITE
EXPLANATION
────────────────────────────────────────
Tsunami Inundation Area BASEMAP SOURCE: ESRI WORLD TOPO MAP; AND, CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
0 1,000 2,000
FEET
SCALE: AS SHOWN
PATH: G:\DRAFTING\PROJECTS\_26000 TO 27999\26084\26084000001\GEX\26084000001 - GEX.APRX LAYOUT: 05. TSUNAMI INUNDATION MAP USER: NCLOUGH
COPYRIGHT @ 2025 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY IT BE QUOTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED.
ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR
FIGURE NO.
TSUNAMI INUNDATION MAP
65 October 20, 2025 Item 14
APPENDIX A
CALCULATIONS
66 October 20, 2025 Item 14
2936 Camino Del Mar 26084.000.001
Runup and Overtopping Analyses February 2025
Condition
Crest Elev.
ft
(NAVD88)
SWL
(NAVD88)
MWL
(NAVD88)
Design
Scour, ft
ds (ft) Wset (ft) T (s) ds/gT2 Hb/ds Hb (ft) Wset/
Hb
Rc (ft) Runup, ft
Eq. 15-1
R*
(NAVD88) q (cfs/ft) q (gpm/ft) q (liters/s per m)
Case 1 - 2024 storms w/out
SLR, scoured to el 0 ft 17 8.28 9.69 2.37 7.32 0.91 18 0.0007 0.95 7.0 0.13 7.31 11.30 20.99 0.17 77.7 16.1 Case 2 - w/2.8 ft SLR, scoured
to el 0 ft 17 11.38 13.25 2.37 10.88 1.37 18 0.0010 0.95 10.3 0.13 3.75 16.80 30.05 6.33 2843.0 588.4 Case 3 - w/4.5 ft SLR, scoured
to el 0 ft 17 13.08 15.16 2.37 12.79 1.58 18 0.0012 0.94 12.0 0.13 1.84 19.54 34.70 19.85 8911.1 1,844.4 Case 4 - Case 1 w/Top of wall
el 22 ft 17 8.28 10.27 -1.63 11.90 1.49 18 0.0011 0.95 11.3 0.13 6.73 18.37 28.64 2.63 1178.5 243.9 Case 5 - Case 2 w/Top of wall
el 22 ft 17 11.38 13.77 -1.63 15.40 1.89 18 0.0015 0.94 14.5 0.13 3.23 23.53 37.30 19.32 8670.4 1,794.6 Case 6 - Case 3 w/Top of wall
el 22 ft 17 13.08 15.67 -1.63 17.30 2.09 18 0.0017 0.94 16.3 0.13 1.33 26.43 42.10 42.63 19133.6 3,960.3 MWL = SWL + wave setup + El Nino temp slr
R* = R + MWL
Top of wall elev = 17 ft, NAVD88
Shoreline Protection Manual
Hb/dsfrom SPM Fig 7-4 assuming 60:1 offshore slope
Wave Setup, Wset
Wset - f(Hb, Hb/gT^2, m)…............eq 3-75, fig 3-50 of SPM, 2984 This is a trial & error solution. Assume a Wset (H5), use the calculated Hb (D22), which solves for Wset (D26).
Hb = 16.30 ft Compare this with the assumed Wset and change the assumed to make both the same.
T = 18 sec
Hb/gT^2 = 0.0015624
Wset/Hb = 0.128 from fig 3-50
Wset = 2.09 ft
El Nino temp slr = 0.5 ft
Wave Runup from Kim (2010)
Ru% = Hb*1.65*γb*γf*γβ*ξm-1,0 ……….Eq 15.1
where: γb = 1
γf = 0.5
γβ = 1
ξm-1,0 = 1.97
Wave Overtopping from Kim (2010)
q = (g*Hb^3)^0.5*(0.067/tanα)*γb*ξm-1,0*exp(-4.3(Rc/ξm-1,0*Hb*γb*γf*γβ*γv) ……Eq 15.7 where: γv = 1
Runup and Overtopping Analysis based on Kim (2010)
67 October 20, 2025 Item 14
www.engeo.com
68 October 20, 2025 Item 14
RESOLUTION NO. PC2025-xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF DEL MAR CERTIFYING AN ADDENDUM TO A
PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 88092919) AND APPROVING SETBACK
SEAWALL PERMIT SSP25-002 TO REMOVE EXISTING SEAWALL
AND ROCK REVETMENT (RIP RAP) LOCATED WITHIN THE
SHORELINE PROTECTION AREA AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 80-
FOOT-LONG SEAWALL DESIGNED AND LOCATED EAST OF THE
SHORELINE PROTECTION AREA LINE IN CONFORMANCE WITH
STANDARDS OF THE BEACH OVERLAY ZONE AND THE CITY OF
DEL MAR LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AND CONCUR WITH THE
APPLICANT’S REQUEST TO CONSOLIDATE THE REQUIRED
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR PROCESSING AND
APPROVAL BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2936 CAMINO DEL MAR, DEL MAR,
CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, Oceans Investments, LLC (APPLICANT) is the owner of real property commonly referred to as 2936 Camino Del Mar (APN: 299-020-12-00) (PROPERTY); and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed verified application for a Setback Seawall Permit SSP25- 002 (PROJECT) to remove existing shoreline protective devices consisting of a seawall and rock revetment located within the Shoreline Protection Area and construct a new vertical sheet-pile seawall approximately 80-feet long to be located easterly of the Shoreline Protection Area (SPA) line, adjacent to 2936 Camino Del Mar; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitute a request as provided by Title 30 of the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC); and
WHEREAS, a Coastal Development Permit from the City of Del Mar and the California Coastal Commission is required for the project and the Applicant has requested to consolidate the permit processing with the California Coastal Commission; and WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report for the Beach Preservation Initiative was certified by Resolution 89-56 by the City Council of the City of Del Mar following circulation to the public, responsible agencies, and other interested persons for their review and comment as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, since the time of the original certification of the Program Environmental Report, the City of Del Mar received development applications (Shoreline Protection Permit and Setback Seawall Permit) to remove existing shoreline protective devices located on beachfront properties and construct a new BPI compliant seawall; and WHEREAS, an Addendum to the Program Environmental Impact Report, dated July 29, 2025, and prepared for the City of Del Mar by RECON Environmental Inc., has been prepared in accordance with applicable law, including the CEQA, Public Resources Code of Regulations
EXHIBIT C
69 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Resolution No. PC2025-
SSP25-002
section 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations section 15000 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum to the Program Environmental Report determined that the proposed changes to remove existing shoreline protective devices and construct a new seawall on the PROPERTY would not result in any new significant impacts or substantially change the severity of the impacts from the adopted Program Environmental Impact Report, and no new mitigation is required; and
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2025, the Design Review Board of the City of Del Mar, serving as the advisory body to the Planning Commission on design related matters to ensure the use of good design which encompasses the use of harmonious material and color, held a duly noticed public hearing to review the referenced entitlements pursuant to Section 6 of the Implementation Guidelines for the Beach Preservation Initiative, and at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include without limitation:
a. Plans submitted by the Applicant.
b. Written information submitted with the application.
c. Staff Report, dated July 23, 2025 which is incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein; and
d. Oral testimony from City staff, the Applicant and the public (if any) e. Additional information submitted during the hearing (if any); and WHEREAS, on July 23, 2025, the Design Review Board of the City of Del Mar, recommended to the Planning Commission approval of the design aesthetic of the seawall; and WHEREAS, on August 12, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Del Mar held a duly noticed public hearing to review the referenced entitlements, to consider the referenced Addendum to the previously certified Programmatic EIR, and at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include without limitation:
a. Plans submitted by the Applicant.
b. Written information submitted with the application.
c. Staff Report, dated August 12, 2025 which is incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein; and
d. Oral testimony from City staff, the Applicant and the public (if any) e. Additional information submitted during the hearing (if any); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Del Mar certifies the Addendum to the Certified Program Environmental Impact Report for the Beach Preservation Initiative, based on the following findings:
1. That the Addendum to the Certified Program Environmental Report (SCH No. 288092919) for the Beach Preservation Initiative has been prepared in compliance with 70 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Resolution No. PC2025-
SSP25-002
the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), as amended, and the CEQA Guidelines thereto (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.).
2. That the Addendum to the Program Environmental Impact Report for the Beach Preservation Initiative reflects the independent judgment of the City of Del Mar as the Lead Agency.
3. That the Addendum to the Program Environmental Impact Report for the Beach Preservation Initiative is accurate and complete.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Del Mar, that Setback Seawall Permit SSP25-002 is hereby approved based on the following findings in DMMC Setback Seawall Permit Section 30.51.040 (Criterial for Approval):
A. Is required to serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect existing principal structures or public beaches in danger from erosion and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts to local shoreline sand supply.
The proposed seawall would be designed and located in compliance with standards enumerated in Chapters 30.50 and 30.51 of the Del Mar Municipal Code and would serve to protect land zoned for development with residential uses. Analysis submitted by a licensed civil engineer and with concurring third-party review by a city-contracted consultant verifies that the construction of a new seawall at the subject property will not have an adverse effect on the erosion or accretion of sand either immediately oceanward or up and down the coast from the subject property.
B. Will minimize risks to life and property in areas of flood hazards.
The proposed seawall has been designed and would be located in accordance with standards of Chapters 30.50 and 30.51 of the Del Mar Municipal Code, ensuring that the structure would serve to minimize risks to life and property for property located within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) VE (Coastal High Hazard) Zone, properties subject to special flood hazard extending from offshore to any area subject to high velocity wave action from storms, seismic forces or tsunamis, to the greatest extent feasible.
C. Will assure stability and structural integrity and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area, nor in any way substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.
The proposed seawall has been designed using contemporary standards and methods of engineering in accordance the design and location requirements of Chapters 30.50 and 30.51 of the Del Mar Municipal Code. Submitted analysis from a qualified civil engineer (and reviewed and verified by expert third-party) specifically confirms that 71 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Resolution No. PC2025-
SSP25-002
the design of the proposed seawall, effectively protect the subject property and would not contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area. The subject property is not located near natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.
D. Is in conformity with the certified Local Coastal Program; Subject to review and approval of Setback Seawall Permit, seawalls are a permitted use in the R1-10 Beach zoning designations for the property. The structure has been reviewed for conformance with applicable standards of the Beach Overlay Zone by the Planning and Engineering Departments as well as a third-party civil engineer, found to comply, and so would be in conformity with the City of Del Mar’s certified Local Coastal Program. The seawall would not obstruct public coastal views, nor would it impact public parking or beach access. Public access is currently provided at the 29th Street streetend approximately 270-feet to the south and at the southwest end of the Camino Del Mar Bridge/San Dieguito Lagoon approximately 400-feet to the north.
Public parking is provided at the 29th Street streetend and along Camino Del Mar located between these beach access points.
E. Is in conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act;
The proposed seawall would facilitate lateral public access that is presently reduced due to the nonconforming location of the property’s existing seawall within the Shoreline Protection Area. With removal of the existing rock revetment and seawall placed on public beach westerly of the Shoreline Protection Area (SPA) delineation line and construction of a new BPI compliant wall located landward (easterly) of the SPA line, additional sandy beach (approximately 1,000 square-feet) would be made available to the public bringing the property into compliance with the City’s Local Coastal Program, itself acting as the implementing mechanism for the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. Vertical public access is currently provided at the 29th Street street end approximately 270-feet to the south and at the southwest end of the Camino Del Mar Bridge/San Dieguito Lagoon approximately 400-feet to the north. Public parking is provided on 29th Street and along Camino Del Mar located between these beach access points in proximity to the project site.
F. Will involve materials and a design that are consistent with good engineering practices;
The proposed seawall has been designed utilizing contemporary standards and methods of engineering in accordance with Chapters 30.50 and 30.51 of the Del Mar Municipal Code and reviewed for compliance by both by the Applicant’s civil engineer, as well as the City’s chosen third-party civil engineer. Surfacing for the proposed wall would be comprised of concrete similar to and complementary of existing up down coast seawalls.
72 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Resolution No. PC2025-
SSP25-002
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Del Mar that SSP25-002 shall be subject to the following conditions:
Note: Gaps in numbering and lettering are intentional.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
G-1 [Business License]
Prior to commencement of any work on site, all contractors and subcontractors shall obtain a valid City of Del Mar Business License. The general contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that all subcontractors obtain required Business License and shall retain copies of said permits on site for verification by City staff.
G-3 [Development Authorization Limited to Plan Set]
This permit is granted based on submitted plans dated [August 12, 2025], and so identified by the staff of the Del Mar Planning and Community Development Department. Revisions to these plans and/or any proposals for modification shall require review and prior authorization from the appropriate entities of the City of Del Mar.
G-4 [Encroachment Permit for Work in Right-of-Way]
Any work proposed or required within a City of Del Mar public right-of-way or access easement, or required within a public right-of-way or access easements pursuant to the conditions of approval of this Permit, shall be subject to the prior receipt of a City of Del Mar Encroachment Permit.
Applications for Encroachment Permits shall include plans depicting all proposed private and public improvements including, but not limited to, improvements involving drainage, grading and/or public utilities. The required Encroachment Permit shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Del Mar in accordance with the procedures set forth in the DMMC and may include requirements for inspections and/or submittal of a security deposit(s). Please note that project plans indicating right-of-way improvements/access does not constitute approval of the separately required Encroachment Permit.
G-8 [Height and Setback Certifications Prior to Final Sign Off] Prior to final project sign-off by the Planning Department, the Applicant shall provide a statement from a Licensed Surveyor or registered civil engineer certifying that the wall height, location and alignment are in compliance with approved plans. The submitted certification shall be made using approved City of Del Mar elevation benchmarks or reference points.
G-11 [Plan for Construction-Phase Impacts]
Prior to issuance of Building Permits or commencement of project implementation (whichever comes first), the Applicant shall provide a plan to the Planning Department for construction-phase parking and equipment/materials storage for the project. The plan must include the following:
a. Identification of an on-site material storage location; b. Identification of an on-site equipment storage location; c. Identification of at least two on-site parking space which will remain available throughout the duration of the project;
73 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Resolution No. PC2025-
SSP25-002
d. Location of any temporary sanitary facilities;
e. A note stating that “If on-street parking is utilized, a minimum street access clearance of 20ft. will be maintained”;
f. Map displaying any/all haul routes; and
g. Contact information (phone number and Email) for the on-site supervisor(s);
1. This information must also be posted on-site in a location which is readily visible from the public right-of-way for the duration of the project.
The plan required herein shall be subject to the review and written approval of the Planning and Community Development Director, working in consultation with Community Services/Parking Enforcement and Public Works Departments. Haul routes and work and/or storage of material or equipment within a City right-of-way will require the receipt of an Encroachment Permit. The requirements mentioned above may be modified by the Planning and Community Development Director, or his designee, upon a determination that sufficient alternatives have been proposed which achieve a similar level of compliance.
G-11A In addition to the submittal of a Construction Phase Impact Plan, the applicant must place a Construction Parking Placard in all vehicles associated with the project which will be parked off-site. The placard must remain in plain view on the dashboard of the vehicle throughout the duration of the project. A Construction Parking Placard can be obtained from the City of Del Mar Planning Department.
G-13 [Permit Expiration]
This Permit shall expire three years from the date of approval, on August 12, 2028 unless a Building Permit has been issued (if required by the DMMC) and substantial construction has been accomplished in reliance upon the permit. Pursuant to the DMMC, substantial construction is defined as: completion of a minimum of 10% of the total amount of construction authorized by the permit, based on the monetary value of construction costs including grading, site preparation and construction but specifically excluding all costs associated with the acquisition of interest in the project site and all costs associated with the preparation and processing of permits or plans.
G-14 [Preconstruction Meeting]
Prior to any demolition, construction, and/or land disturbances occurring on-site, a preconstruction meeting shall be held. Attendees to this meeting shall include representatives from the City of Del Mar’s Planning and Community Development Department, City Engineer, the Project Contractor/Superintendent, the Project Architect, the Project Engineer, the property owner and any others essential for the proper implementation and completion of this project. At a minimum, the following issues shall be reviewed at this meeting:
a. City of Del Mar inspection requirements.
b. Process for requests for plan modification and determinations of substantial conformance.
c. Discretionary permit conditions and requirements.
d. Construction hour limitations and noise standards.
e. Construction access and parking including equipment/materials storage and maintenance.
74 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Resolution No. PC2025-
SSP25-002
f. Work within public rights-of-way and/or easements.
g. Stormwater Best Management Practices.
h. Tree-preservation requirements.
i. Demolition permit requirements.
j. Signage requirements/limitations.
k. Neighborhood impact issues.
l. Key contact information.
m. Business license requirements.
n. Construction and demolition waste diversion requirements o. Any other pertinent construction related activities and or information.
G-16 [Compliance with City Noise Regulations]
The applicant and all parties involved with implementation of the project shall comply with the regulations of the DMMC with regard to construction noise. The regulations stipulate that all construction activities are limited to the following periods: between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. / Monday through Friday and between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction activities are prohibited during other hours and on Sundays and City Holidays. The City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.20 of the Del Mar Municipal Code, includes the dates of City Holidays, and can be viewed on the City’s web page (www.delmar.ca.us).
G-17 [Dig Alert]
Prior to excavation or trenching, the applicant shall call Underground Service Alert of Southern California (Dig Alert- 1-800-227-2600) for a mark out of service utilities.
G-18 [Rules for Construction-related Signage]
All construction-related signage posted at the project site shall comply with DMMC Chapter 30.84 (Signs). The pertinent sections of the Sign Chapter allow installation of a total 5.5 square feet of temporary signage on a residential property (that is cumulative of all signs posted). Such signs may be posted for a maximum of sixty (60) days in a calendar year.
The restrictions noted above do not apply to the Development Pending, Construction Noise Notice and Building Permit signs required by the City as part of the project review process.
All construction related signage, including City required signs, shall be removed prior to final approval of the project.
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS
E-1 [Authorization for off-site work]
Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the Applicant shall obtain letters of permission from any affected property owners if any construction or construction access is required across property lines.
E-2 [Compliance with Appendix C-5 - Construction Urban Runoff] This project shall conform to Appendix C-5, the "Construction Urban Runoff Requirements Manual" as depicted in the latest edition of the City of Del Mar's "Jurisdictional Urban Runoff 75 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Resolution No. PC2025-
SSP25-002
Management Program". In addition, the construction practices are subject to inspection, and must conform to the "Low Priority Urban Runoff Management Plan" and corresponding "Urban Runoff Construction Site Inspection Record" as depicted in Appendix C-5.
STORMWATER CONDITIONS
SW-1 [Storm Drain Protection]
Down gradient storm drains shall be protected at all times with perimeter controls, such as gravel bags or straw wattles. All sediment accumulation shall be removed (swept up, etc.) periodically, and prior to removal of controls.
SW-2 [Building Material Storage]
All building materials and fuel stored on-site must be properly contained and covered.
SW-3 [Perimeter Controls]
Perimeter controls must be used to surround the entire site to control run-on and run-off water flows. Gravel bags, silt fences, and/or straw wattles may be used as perimeter controls. All controls must be checked and maintained daily. In the event that perimeter controls are damaged, they will be replaced at the earliest possible time, not to exceed 2 days.
SW-4 [On-Site Storage]
Construction materials must be stored on-site at all times unless a City of Del Mar Encroachment Permit has been obtained. Building materials should be covered when not in use to prevent runoff caused by wind or rain.
SW-5 [Refuse Containment]
All dumpsters on-site must be covered. If a fixed-cover is not used, a rollback tarp shall be made available. Perimeter controls must be installed surrounding the dumpster. Areas around dumpsters should be swept daily and damaged perimeter controls replaced as necessary. If dumpsters are kept in the right-of-way, appropriate permits must be obtained.
SW-6 [Portable Toilets]
Perimeter controls must be installed surrounding all Port-a-Potties. Perimeter controls shall be replaced as necessary to prevent discharge. If Port-a-Potties are kept in the right-of-way, appropriate permits must be obtained.
SW-7 [Concrete Containment]
All concrete trucks/pumpers/mixers shall be surrounded by perimeter controls, such as gravel bags.
Plastic sheets or tarps shall be placed beneath concrete pumpers at all times, and all residual materials swept up. Washout areas must be used whenever cleaning trucks, pumpers, or mixers.
Under no condition will run-off from wash-out of materials be allowed to discharge into the storm drain.
SW-8 [Wet Material Disposal]
Disposal of “wet” construction materials shall be handled in the washout area. This shall include paint, stucco, and concrete. A berm and/or plastic sheet shall be used to collect and contain liquids 76 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Resolution No. PC2025-
SSP25-002
and prevent run-off in nearby areas. The wash-out area shall be checked and maintained daily to ensure compliance. All washout liquids shall be disposed of properly.
SW-9 [Dirt/Gravel Coverage]
Mounds of dirt or gravel shall be stored on-site, and out of the right-of-way, unless a City of Del Mar Encroachment Permit has been obtained. All mounds shall be covered daily with a tarp, coconut mat, or other form of protection. Visqueen and/or tarps must be available and on-site to cover 125% of exposed areas during the rainy season (October-April).
SW-10 [Heavy Equipment]
All earthmoving equipment shall be stored on-site. Any required maintenance shall also be conducted on-site. Any tracks or trails left by equipment leading to and from the site shall be cleaned up immediately. If power washing is used to clean-up tracks and/or trails, all run-off shall be directed to vegetated or permeable areas and prevented from entering the municipal stormwater conveyance system. If permeable areas are unavailable, and power washing used, all washout shall be collected and disposed of properly.
SW-11 [Contractor Instruction]
All subcontractors shall be instructed by the General Contractor on the proper use of stormwater controls at the site. It shall be the responsibility of the General Contractor (or their delegated representative) to ensure that stormwater controls are maintained throughout construction operations.
SW-12 [Landscape Materials/Trench Materials]
All stockpiles of landscaping materials (including topsoil and/or manure) or trench spoils placed in the right-of-way shall be surrounded by perimeter controls, such as gravel bags. Plastic sheets or tarps shall be placed beneath the stored material at all times, and all residual materials swept up. For any materials stored in the right-of-way, appropriate permits must be obtained.
SW-13 [Debris Containment]
All construction debris shall be contained in a secured, city approved container. Debris container shall be free of leaks and securely covered during non working hours.
SW-14 [Storm Event]
In the event of a predicted storm event, additional stormwater BMPs may be required dependent on site conditions.
SW-15 [JURMP Compliance]
The Project shall conform to the City of Del Mar “Construction Urban Runoff Requirements Manual as in accordance with the latest edition of the City of Del Mar Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP). In addition, all construction practices are subject to inspection, and must conform to the “Urban Runoff Management Plan” and corresponding “Urban Runoff Construction Site Inspection Record”.
SW-16[All Priority Development Projects with structural BMPs & O&M plans] 77 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Resolution No. PC2025-
SSP25-002
Prior to occupancy, the Project Applicant shall provide the City of Del Mar Clean Water Manager with two (2) copies of Project “as-built” plans, stamped/signed final Stormwater Mitigation Plan, and final Operations & Maintenance Plans for inclusion of the Project in the City of Del Mar Annual Inspection Program.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
S-1 [No Encroachments of Private Improvements Located on or West of Shoreline Protection Area Line]
There shall be no encroachments of private improvements located on or west of the Shoreline Protection Area line, to include but not limited to, transitional ladders/stairs for beach access.
S-5 [Beach Access during Construction]
Vertical and lateral pedestrian and lifeguard beach access shall be maintained during construction and lateral access shall be maintained as required by the Community Services Department of the City of Del Mar, in no event shall lateral access be disrupted below the Mean High Tide Line.
S-6 [Sand Sifting]
Prior to backfilling and final approval of the project by the City, the contractor shall sift sand such that material is free of stones or lumps exceeding 1 inch in greatest dimension, or organic and unsatisfactory material. The area to be sifted is along the length of the site, from the SPA line to 30 feet west, and to elevation +4 feet MSL.
S-7 [Indemnification and Hold Harmless]
The Applicant/owners agree to indemnify, defend and save the City of Del Mar, its authorized agents, officers, representatives and employees harmless from and against any and all costs, penalties, liabilities, annoyances or loss resulting from claims or court action arising out of, or related to the issuance of this permit or the work hereunder, including but not limited to any accident, loss or damage to persons or property happening or occurring as a result of any work undertaken under the permit granted pursuant to the application.
S-8 [Equipment Removal]
The Applicant/owner agrees that if any tank, pipe, conduit, duct, tunnel or other installation of any nature or kind placed in the structure for which the permit is issued which shall at any time in the future interfere with the use, repair, improvement, widening, or change of grade of the affected public property, the Applicants, or their successors or assigns, within ten (10) working days after the receipt of a written notice from the City Manager to do so, will at their own expense either remove such tank, pipe, conduit, duct, tunnel or other installation, or subject to the approval of the City Manager, relocate them to a site which may be designated by the City Manager.
S-10 [Notice of Construction- City]
The contractor/owner hereby agree to notify the Planning Department, the Superintendent of Public Works and the Community Services Department, in writing at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the time when work will be started. Contractor/Applicant will, upon completion of the work, immediately notify the Planning Director in writing of such completion. 78 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Resolution No. PC2025-
SSP25-002
S-11 [Notice of Construction- Public Utility]
Contractor/owner shall notify the appropriate utility owner forty-eight (48) hours prior to performing any work on or adjacent to any public utility. All such work shall be done only with authorization and with inspection by the appropriate utility owner.
S-12 [Flag Person]
The contractor shall provide a minimum of one (1) flag person to be onsite at all times during the operation of heavy equipment. In addition, the contractor shall be subject to all safety measures required by the Community Service Department during construction.
S-13 [Staging Plan]
If the contractor/Applicant propose to stockpile equipment or materials, a staging plan shall be submitted to the City of Del Mar, in advance, for the approval of the City Manager. No material or equipment shall be stored on public streets or rights-of-ways without prior written authority from the City Manager.
S-14 [Sand Removal]
All sand removed from the beach shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the City Manager.
S-15 [Damage Repair]
A qualified consultant shall document existing conditions along the beach frontage of neighboring properties, construction access points, and adjacent roadways. Documentation shall include video, still-images, reports, and any other means necessary to accurately assess the existing conditions.
The documentation shall be reviewed by the City Engineer. Any damage caused by construction activities and/or construction traffic shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to final City of Del Mar acceptance.
S-16 [Third-party Geotechnical Review]
Prior to project implementation, the Applicant shall submit detailed construction drawings, geotechnical report, and engineering calculations for third-party review and approval by the City’s designated Geotechnical/Coastal Engineer. The third-party review shall address, but not limited to review the design scour depth, pail capacity and deformation characteristics, post-construction deflections, concrete cap specifications, and flank protection.
S-18 [Acceptance of Conditions]
The owner and permittee shall file a statement of acceptance of conditions stating that the owners/permittee have read and understand and accept the conditions listed above and shall (prior to the commencement of construction) return a signed statement accepting said conditions.
S-20 [Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit]
This PROJECT requires approval of a Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission. Prior to commencement of the project, the applicant shall provide evidence of the receipt of the Coastal Development Permit to the Director of Planning and Community Development.
79 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Resolution No. PC2025-
SSP25-002
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Del Mar this 12th day of August, 2025 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
RECUSED:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________________
Philip Posner, Chair
Planning Commission Chair
City of Del Mar, California
ATTEST:
____________________________________________
Karen Brindley
Planning and Community Development Director
City of Del Mar, California
80 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Setback Seawall Permit
2936 Camino Del Mar
Concerns of Steve Mack
2932 Camino Del Mar
EXHIBIT D
81 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Del Mar
Municipal
Code
Section
30.51 • 30.51.040 Criteria for
Approval
• C. Will assure stability
and structural integrity and
neither create nor
contribute significantly to
erosion, geologic
instability, or destruction of
the site or surrounding
area, nor in any way
substantially alter natural
landforms along bluffs and
cliffs.
• 2932 is a unique home
designed by Sim Bruce
Richards; a student of Frank
Lloyd Wright
• Due to the construction
methods and materials used
in the home design, the
construction of a seawall on
the adjoining property may
cause significant damage.
• Construction of the seawall at
2920 Camino Del Mar caused
significant damage to Mr.
Mack’s home requiring
substantial remediation.
82 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Sim Bruce
Richards
Sim Bruce Richards was discovered by Frank Lloyd
Wright through his early abstract rug designs while
attending UC Berkeley (1930-34)15. Upon an invitation
from Mr. Wright, impressed by Bruce’s early work,
Richards worked directly for Wright in the Taliesin
Fellowship between 1934-3516. Bruce moved to San
Diego in 1938 and drafted for the 11th Naval District
and later William Templeton Johnson15. Following a
brief stint with architect Harold Abrams (1946)15, Bruce began a multi-decade career designing some of the
finest hand-crafted residences that followed Wright’s
principles of organic architecture [Among them: Siting
a project in the manner the site dictated; using organic and even native materials to the site and surrounding
areas; and incorporating plenty of natural light with a project designed at a “human” scale].
83 October 20, 2025 Item 14
84 October 20, 2025 Item 14
• Midcentury modern-inspired
post and beam construction.
• Characterized by soaring
spaces and glass expanses that
bring the outdoors in.
• Redwood, walls of cedar,
stained glass, stone and brick
85 October 20, 2025 Item 14
The wood block floors
of varying woods are
particularly
susceptible to damage
and require a
craftsman to repair.
86 October 20, 2025 Item 14
87 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Continuance
• Mr. Mack is asking that you continue this hearing
to allow him tine to work with the applicant and
the City to develop a protocol to protect his
property from damage during the construction
of the seawall.
88 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Setback Seawall Permit
2936 Camino Del Mar
Concerns of Steve Mack
2932 Camino Del Mar
Item 2 89 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Del Mar
Municipal
Code
Section
30.51 • 30.51.040 Criteria for
Approval
• C. Will assure stability
and structural integrity and
neither create nor
contribute significantly to
erosion, geologic
instability, or destruction of
the site or surrounding
area, nor in any way
substantially alter natural
landforms along bluffs and
cliffs.
• 2932 is a unique home
designed by Sim Bruce
Richards; a student of Frank
Lloyd Wright
• Due to the construction
methods and materials used
in the home design, the
construction of a seawall on
the adjoining property may
cause significant damage.
• Construction of the seawall at
2920 Camino Del Mar caused
significant damage to Mr.
Mack’s home requiring
substantial remediation.
Item 2 90 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Sim Bruce
Richards
Sim Bruce Richards was discovered by Frank Lloyd
Wright through his early abstract rug designs while
attending UC Berkeley (1930-34)15. Upon an invitation
from Mr. Wright, impressed by Bruce’s early work,
Richards worked directly for Wright in the Taliesin
Fellowship between 1934-3516. Bruce moved to San
Diego in 1938 and drafted for the 11th Naval District
and later William Templeton Johnson15. Following a
brief stint with architect Harold Abrams (1946)15, Bruce began a multi-decade career designing some of the
finest hand-crafted residences that followed Wright’s
principles of organic architecture [Among them: Siting
a project in the manner the site dictated; using organic and even native materials to the site and surrounding
areas; and incorporating plenty of natural light with a project designed at a “human” scale].
Item 2 91 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Item 2 92 October 20, 2025 Item 14
• Midcentury modern-inspired
post and beam construction.
• Characterized by soaring
spaces and glass expanses that
bring the outdoors in.
• Redwood, walls of cedar,
stained glass, stone and brick
Item 2 93 October 20, 2025 Item 14
The wood block floors
of varying woods are
particularly
susceptible to damage
and require a
craftsman to repair.
Item 2 94 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Item 2 95 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Damage to
Surrounding
Area
• The home at 2932 Camino Del Mar, designed
by noted architect Sim Bruce Richards, is a
unique example of organic architecture and is
constructed with materials and methods that
make it particularly sensitive to vibrations and
movement. During the construction of a
previous seawall at 2920 Camino Del Mar, Mr.
Mack’s home experienced significant damage,
including flooring and window seal failures,
which required extensive repairs by
specialized craftsmen.
• While Mr. Mack is not opposed to the concept
of seawall construction in general, it is critical
that any approval be conditioned on measures
to protect adjacent properties from damage.
• Mr. Mack has retained the firm of Josephson
and Werdowatz to conduct a comprehensive
pre-construction inspection as well as
vibration and movement monitoring
throughout construction.
Item 2 96 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Liability
• Mr. Mack is asking for a surety to cover the cost
of any damage to his home and provide for
alternate accommodations during repairs/
• The applicant has indicated a willingness to
come to an agreement; but parties have not had
the time to develop a special condition or
agreement that will address the problem.
• It is incumbent upon the City to require the
project is completed in a manner that does not
damage or destroy the surrounding area,
including Mr. Mack’s home at 2932 Camino Del
Mar.
Item 2 97 October 20, 2025 Item 14
AANNESTAD ANDELIN& CORN LLP
160 CHESTERFIELD DRIVE SUITE 102
CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA CALIFORNIA 92007
www.aac.law (760) 944-9006
Coastal Property Rights, Land Use & Litigation
September 22, 2025
VIA EMAIL
Jean Crutchfield, Associate Planner
City of Del Mar
1050 Camino del Mar
Del Mar, California 92014
[email protected]
Re: Initial Consideration – Planning Commission Determination Regarding Setback Seawall Permit SSP 25-002 (2936 Camino del Mar)
Dear Ms. Crutchfield:
I am counsel for the applicant for the above-referenced project. There is no basis for City Council to accept the appeal filed on behalf of Steve Mack. The appellant states that he “is not opposed to the concept of a seawall construction in general ….” The appeal relies entirely on Del Mar Municipal Code section 30.51.040(C), which requires the Planning Commission to find the project “neither create[s] nor contribute[s] significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area ….”
The Planning Commission’s resolution, at paragraph C, correctly recites the evidence in support of this finding: “The proposed seawall has been designed using contemporary standards and methods of engineering in accordance the design and location requirements of Chapters 30.50 and
30.51 of the Del Mar Municipal Code. Submitted analysis from a qualified civil engineer (and reviewed and verified by expert third-party) specifically confirms that the design of the proposed seawall, effectively protect the subject property and would not contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area.…” Indeed, the seawall plans are based on the City’s standard seawall design that has been implemented without incident all along the City’s coastline.
The only evidence cited to the contrary is counsel’s own unverified statement that “[the appellant’s] home suffered significant damage during the construction of the seawall at 2920 Camino Del Mar—which has since been repaired.” What counsel fails to mention, as she conceded on the record at the Planning Commission meeting, is that the construction at 2920 Camino Del Mar used older and inferior equipment for driving the sheet piles into the ground.
ATTACHMENT D
98 October 20, 2025 Item 14
Jean Crutchfield
September 22, 2025
Notably, 2920 is two lots south of the appellant’s property. Construction of the seawall for the property at 2928 Camino Del Mar, immediately adjacent to the appellant’s, used higher grade equipment—the same that the applicant’s contractor plans to use here—and did not cause any damage to the appellant’s property, even though it was in closer proximity.
Thus, the proposed project is not expected to cause any damage to the appellant’s property.
Protection of the appellant’s property is further assured by Special Condition No. S-15, which provides: “A qualified consultant shall document existing conditions along the beach frontage of neighboring properties, construction access points, and adjacent roadways. Documentation shall include video, still-images, reports, and any other means necessary to accurately assess the existing conditions. The documentation shall be reviewed by the City Engineer. Any damage caused by construction activities and/or construction traffic shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to final City of Del Mar acceptance.” (Italics added.) In short, in the unlikely event that any damage is caused, the applicant will be required to repair the damage under the supervision of the City Engineer.
The foregoing should be more than enough to satisfy the appellant’s demand that “any approval be conditioned on measures to protect the adjacent property from damage.” Thank you for your consideration. I would be happy to provide any additional information you might need.
Very truly yours,
AANNESTAD ANDELIN & CORN LLP
Lee M. Andelin
cc: Sarah Krietor
Karen Brindley
Matt Bator
Walter F. Crampton
Peter McInish
99 October 20, 2025 Item 14
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Kseniia Izgarskaia, Senior Management Analyst
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: October 20, 2025
SUBJECT: 2026 City Council Meeting Schedule and Proposed 2025 and 2026 City Facility Holiday Closures
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Review and consider the 2026 City Council Meeting Schedule options (Attachment A and B) provide direction to staff regarding changes to the proposed schedule; and 2) Authorize the additional holiday related closures of City Hall and the Public Works Administrative Offices to the public in December 2025 and December 2026.
BACKGROUND:
Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section 2.20.040(A) states that, “Regular meetings of the City Council shall be held on the first and third Monday of each month,” and further states that, “The City Council may, by resolution, designate another date, time, and location for a regular meeting.” The DMMC, and the procedures adopted by the City Council through Resolution 2009-40, require the City Council to annually adopt a meeting schedule for the upcoming calendar year, identify any regular meeting dates to be cancelled, and designate any new dates as regular meetings.
Additionally, City facilities are closed each year in December and January for the following designated City holidays: Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day. In past years, the City Council authorized staff to close City facilities for additional days around holidays when it is practical to do so.
For several years, City Hall and the Public Works Administrative Office have been closed to the public between the Christmas and New Year’s holidays. This closure takes into account normal paid City holidays and includes additional non-paid days between Christmas and New Years, which is historically a very slow time of year for the City.
The original proposed 2025 and 2026 Holiday Closures and 2026 City Council Meeting Schedule was included on the Council meeting agenda for consideration on October 6, 2025; however, the meeting was cancelled. In preparation for that meeting, Councilmembers had 1 October 20, 2025 Item 15
City Council Agenda Report
2026 City Council Meeting Schedule and 2025 and 2026 Holiday Closures October 20, 2025
an opportunity to review the published agenda report and proposed meeting schedule. As a result, two Councilmembers requested that staff create an alternative schedule for the Council’s consideration, which is described below and included with this report as Attachment B. Based on City Council’s direction, staff will return with a formal resolution approving the final 2026 Council meeting schedule at the next Council meeting on November 3, 2025.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
2026 Council Meeting Schedule - Option 1 (Original Schedule Proposed by Staff) The original proposed 2026 City Council Meeting Schedule calendar, which is based on the Council’s regular meeting schedule as specified in the DMMC, is included as Attachment A and visually displays the meeting schedule in a calendar format. If the City Council finds that additional meetings are needed during the calendar year, the Council can add meetings by scheduling a special meeting or adjourning a regular meeting to a new date.
Proposed 2026 City Council Regular Meeting Schedule
Typically, the City Council meets twice per month on the first and third Monday. However, it is not uncommon for the Council to modify the meeting schedule, when necessary, such as for City observed holidays and the Council’s summer meeting recess. Proposed 2026 Council Meeting Schedule changes include:
1) Holding the second meeting of January 2026 on Tuesday, January 20 to account for the Martin Luther King Holiday on Monday, January 19.
2) Holding the second meeting of February 2026 on Tuesday, February 17, to account for the President’s Day holiday on February 16.
3) Traditionally, the City Council takes a month-long summer recess. Consistent with the break timing for the last few years, staff recommends that the Council forego the second regularly scheduled meeting in July 2026 (July 20) and first regularly scheduled meeting in August 2026 (August 3), resuming the meetings on August 17, 2026. If the City Council finds that a meeting is needed during the Council recess, the Council can call a special meeting.
4) Holding the first meeting of September 2026 on Tuesday, September 8 to account for the Labor Day holiday on Monday, September 7.
5) Holding the single Council meeting in November 2026, on Monday, November 16, which takes into account the City General Election (Council Policy 107) and the Thanksgiving Holiday.
The City Council may direct staff to make any additional changes to this schedule, as needed. 2026 Council Meeting Schedule - Option 2 (Tuesday Meetings with Additional Changes) Two Councilmembers requested that staff create an alternative schedule (Attachment B) for the Council’s consideration that shifts Council meetings from being held on Mondays to Tuesdays, following the same first and third week of the month meeting schedule, and 2 October 20, 2025 Item 15
City Council Agenda Report
2026 City Council Meeting Schedule and 2025 and 2026 Holiday Closures October 20, 2025
incorporates additional changes as described below. If approved, holding Council meetings on Tuesdays instead of Mondays would occur during 2026 as a one-year pilot program, which would be formalized via resolution at the next City Council meeting. If at the end of 2026 the Council determines that the Tuesday Council meeting day works well, the Council could adopt an ordinance amending the Del Mar Municipal Code to make the Tuesday meetings permanent.
Additional requested schedule changes reflected on the Option 2 proposed meeting calendar include changing the single August meeting date from August 18 to August 25, and adjusting the September meeting dates to September 8 and September 22 to allow for sufficient time between meetings in light of the modified August meeting date. It was also suggested that the one meeting to be held in November should occur on November 10 instead of November
17. Special Meetings
The City Council typically holds a Goals and Priorities Workshop in the first part of the calendar year. Once the Mayor and Deputy Mayor are seated for 2026, staff will schedule a meeting to discuss possible dates and a format for the 2026 Council Goals and Priorities Workshop, which will be presented Council for discussion and feedback prior to scheduling.
In past election years, the City Council has called a special meeting to certify election results in December if the certified election results were not received from the County of San Diego Registrar of Voters in time to be certified at a regularly scheduled Council meeting. Staff anticipates the certified election results will be available prior to the last December meeting.
However, if they are not available for that meeting, a special meeting will be required.
Proposed 2025 and 2026 City Facility Holiday Closures
In 2025, the designated paid City holidays fall on December 24 (Wednesday), 25 (Thursday), 31 (Wednesday), and January 1 (Thursday). Based on the closures of City Hall and the Public Works Administrative Office in past years between Christmas and New Years with minimal public impact, staff proposes additional non-paid closure days on December 26 (Friday), 29 (Monday), 30 (Tuesday), 2025, with the City re-opening for remote services on January 2 (Friday), 2026, and full in-person services on Monday, January 5, 2026.
In 2026, the designated paid City holidays fall on December 24 (Thursday), 25 (Friday), 31 (Thursday), and January 1 (Friday). Staff proposes additional non-paid closure days on December 28 (Monday), 29 (Tuesday), and 30 (Wednesday), 2026. City Hall would reopen to the public on Monday, January 4, 2027.
If the recommendation is approved by the City Council, staff that choose to work on the additional non-paid closure days can do so or they would be able to use accrued leave and take additional time off. Although the City Hall and Public Works Offices would be closed to the public, City field operations would continue as normal and beach maintenance, public safety, parking enforcement, and public works field staff would still provide a standard level of service to the public during that time.
3 October 20, 2025 Item 15
City Council Agenda Report
2026 City Council Meeting Schedule and 2025 and 2026 Holiday Closures October 20, 2025
As in past years, if approved, staff will notify the public of the holiday closure dates via several channels, such as sending out eblasts and including in the Del Mar Weekly, posting the dates on the City website calendar, posting signs on the City Hall front doors, making announcements at the December Council meetings, noting the close on Google, and providing notifications through the City’s social media.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact or action to be taken related to this agenda item.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Proposed 2026 City Council Meeting Calendar Attachment B – Alternative Proposed 2026 City Council Meeting Calendar 4 October 20, 2025 Item 15
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 25 26 27 28 30 31 29 30 31
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 27 28 29 30 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30
31 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 4 5
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30
30 31
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 27 28 29 30 31
Key:
City Council Meeting
City Holiday
Special Meetings: City Council Goals and Priorities Setting Workshop - TBD Approved xx/xx/2025
2026 Del Mar City Council Meeting Calendar
July August September
October November December
January February March
April May June
5 October 20, 2025 Item 15
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 25 26 27 28 30 31 29 30 31
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 27 28 29 30 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30
31 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 4 5
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30
30 31
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 27 28 29 30 31
Key:
City Council Meeting
City Holiday
Special Meetings: City Council Goals and Priorities Setting Workshop - TBD Approved xx/xx/2025
October November December
January February March
April May June
2026 Del Mar City Council Meeting Calendar
July August September
6 October 20, 2025 Item 15
City of Del Mar
Council Liaison Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Dwight Worden, Del Mar Representative to the Metro JPA DATE: October 2, 2025
The Metro JPA Board/Commission met on October 2, 2025. The Metro Board approved the Second Amended and Restated Agreement (SARA). This is the new document governing the relationship between the Metro agencies (including the City of Del Mar) and the City of San Diego as owner of the metro system. The SARA is not binding unless and until approved by each of the Metro member Participating Agencies (PA’s) and by the City of San Diego. Today’s action was to recommend approval to the PA’s. It will be transmitted to the PA’s shortly. City of San Diego staff is also recommending it for approval to the San Diego City Council.
COMMENTS
Of the 11 Metro JPA members, one, Padre Dam, voted “no” on the SARA. All 10 other members voted “yes.” To be effective the SARA needs to be approved by all 11 PA’s.
Extensive discussions have been held with Padre Dam’s representative to the Metro JPA, and there is hope that they will eventually come on board, but at the moment they are a “no.” The issue of concern to Padre is the provision in SARA that certain decisions can be made by 2/3 vote of the JPA. Padre wants it to be unanimous. This is not acceptable to the City of San Diego which owns the system or to the other 10 JPA members as it would effectively give every member a veto. Discussions are continuing. I will keep you posted.
The SARA has been extensively reviewed by me, by Public Works Director Joe Bride and by City Manager Ashley Jones. It is good for Del Mar. Del Mar will officially receive a copy from the JPA soon, and JPA staff will be offering a traveling road show to present it to the legislative bodies of the PAs. I am also available to answer questions. 1 October 20, 2025 Item XIIL