Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda
Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
April 21, 2026 City Council Meeting
INFORMATION RECEIVED
AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA
WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)
1 Denise Galvan
From: Paula Whalen <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2026 12:38 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: carol lazier
Subject: "Red Dot Correspondence for item 7 4/21 Council Mtg Safety Element Attachments: Geocon Memo re North Bluff, Site Specific Study, CoSMoS (Draft Safety Element for
4.21.26 DM Council).pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Martinez and members of the Council:
I am submitting this on behalf of the North Bluff property owners in response to your draft Safety Element. While we understand the importance of the draft element, there is one glaring error that must be addressed and corrected prior to adoption. Specifically, our comments focus on the Coastal Hazards, Vulnerability and Risk Assessment (CHVRA) section as they apply to the North Bluff properties. I have attached a memo on this issue that was prepared by qualified specialists in geology, geotechnical engineering, and sea level rise science. The City’s draft Safety Element incorrectly associates North Bluff properties with CoSMos Phase 1 data to establish building setback lines, instead of including a policy to require site specific geologic and geotechnical investigations to establish building setback lines. Incorporating the CoSMos Phase 1 setback lines by reference in the CHVRA section is an error and must be corrected. While I understand this is coming from prior Council policy documents related to sea rise vulnerability and adaptation, those were not adopted as an amendment to the Community Plan. The Safety Element is an amendment to your community Plan.
April 21, 2026 Item 7
2 Decisions that affect private property rights should not rely solely on generalized data or broad regional models, especially when more precise, site-specific information is available. Policies grounded in localized data are more likely to reflect the actual conditions, impacts, and needs of individual properties and their owners.
I also encourage the Council to continue this discussion in future meetings. Given the importance and potential long-term consequences of these decisions, additional review and ongoing dialogue would help ensure that all relevant information is carefully considered before final actions are taken.
I recognize the importance of public safety and understand that the safety element is mandated by state law. At the same time, the City can meet these requirements while adopting costal hazard policies that are consistent with approaches used in other jurisdictions, aligned with Coastal Commission guidance, and more accurately reflect the specific conditions of the North Bluff. A balanced approach will ensure compliance without overlooking the unique characteristics of this area.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Sincerely,
Paula Whalen
APN 298-241-34, APN 298-241-35, APN 298-241-36, APN 298-241-29 April 21, 2026 Item 7
6960 Flanders Drive ■ San Diego, California 92121-2974 ■ Telephone (858) 558-6900 ■ www.geoconinc.com February 18, 2026
Ms. Paula Whalen Ms. Carol Lazier Mr. Camille El Khourey 0 Border Avenue 929 Border Avenue 101 Border Avenue
Del Mar, CA 92014 Del Mar, CA 92014 Del Mar, CA 92014
Subject: COMMENTS ON DRAFT CITY OF DEL MAR SAFETY ELEMENT AS
THEY RELATE TO BLUFF-FRONTING PROPERTIES ABOVE NORTH
BEACH IN THE CITY OF DEL MAR AND IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT
TO DEVELOPED PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
Dear Ms. Whalen, Ms. Lazier, and Mr. El Khourey:
In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the draft City of Del Mar Safety Element dated December 2025. This document has been recommended for adoption by the City Planning Commission and is targeted for consideration by the City Council this spring.
The purpose of our review was to summarize selected portions of the Safety Element and provide a professional opinion and general comments regarding its applicability to the geotechnical aspects of the bluff-fronting properties above North Beach in the City of Del Mar. These properties are immediately south of extensive residential development that continues north in the City of Solana Beach. The parcels studied are predominantly vacant and intended for residential use, with one parcel developed with a single-family residence (Parcels). The Parcels are identified as the following:
APNs 298-241-34 & 298-241-35
APNs 298-241-06, 298-241-07 (929 Border Avenue) & 299-030-14 APN 299-030-15 (101 Border Avenue)
Specifically, our comments focus on the Coastal Hazards, Vulnerability, and Risk Assessment (CHVRA) section of the draft Safety Element as they apply to the North Bluff properties and the recommended building setback presented in Geocon’s geotechnical reports dated September 6, 2019, and March 29, 2023. Additional information is also provided to explain the geologic differences between the bluffs along North Beach (North Bluff) and South Beach (South Bluff) generally located between Powerhouse Park south to the Los Peñasquitos inlet.
In summary, the City is scientifically mistakenly associating the North Bluff properties with CoSMoS Phase 1 data in the City’s draft Safety Element in lieu of relying upon site-specific geologic and April 21, 2026 Item 7
- 2 - February 18, 2026
geotechnical investigations for this area that the City has in its public records for several years. This work includes the site-specific building setback to be applied to future North Bluff development based on an 87-year record of bluff erosion as well as subsurface geotechnical investigations and engineering analysis in this area conducted by Geocon. These studies should remain the primary basis for setback determination and development planning for all North Bluff properties as the primary factor controlling sea cliff erosion in this area is the overall relative strength of the geologic units as evidenced in the peer-reviewed, published geologic literature.
BACKGROUND
The Safety Element is a state-mandated component of the City of Del Mar’s Community Plan (General Plan) that identifies natural and anthropogenic hazards with the potential to affect the City over both short- and long-term timeframes. Its purpose is to establish a policy framework to help the City anticipate and plan for these hazards. The overarching goal is to reduce the community’s exposure to risks associated with fires, floods, droughts, earthquakes, landslides, climate change, and other hazards that may result in life-threatening injuries, property damage, and economic or social disruption. The Safety Element also serves as the basis for adaptation planning.
The Safety Element is one of seven required elements of the City’s General Plan. With respect to community development, it works in conjunction with the Land Use Element, which establishes the location, type, intensity, and distribution of land uses throughout the City and defines land use buildout potential. This includes identifying areas designated for residential, commercial, office, open space, and building-restricted uses, particularly in areas subject to natural hazards.
A section of the draft Safety Element refers to a Coastal Hazards, Vulnerability, and Risk Assessment (CHVRA), which evaluates the City’s vulnerability to coastal hazards. The City prepared the CHVRA in 2016, followed by a supplemental addendum in 2018, which included the preparation and approval of an Adaptation Plan. These assessments evaluated the projected timing and extent of vulnerability affecting City beaches, lagoons, coastal bluffs, visitor-serving amenities, public access areas, residential and commercial development, and public infrastructure. The findings have been used by the City to guide local planning efforts aimed at adaptation, risk minimization, and future response to projected hazards such as sea level rise, flooding, and erosion.
Past City Council Action to Protect the Private Property Interests of its Residents The CHVRA, which is comprised of the 2016 vulnerability study and 2018 addendum, as well as the City’s Adaptation Plan are locally adopted documents and not a part of the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). While once considered for incorporation into its LCP, in June 2021, the City Council voted to formally withdraw an LCP amendment just prior to the California Coastal Commission’s (CCC) consideration. The withdrawal was based on the City’s acceptance of several policy changes requested by the CCC including a provision for managed retreat (relocating homes) to address hazards associated with rising sea levels. The City disagreed with the CCC’s requests and determined they were not in the best interest of the City. As stated in the City’s letter to the CCC, “The Coastal Commission’s modifications reintroducing managed retreat for private property would irreversibly harm Del Mar, Del Mar beaches, the millions of beach visitors each year, and the 700+ homes in the beach community.
The modifications also include new deed restriction and altered bluff erosion rate calculation requirements for Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone with potential to further apply to another 500+ homes on April 21, 2026 Item 7
- 3 - February 18, 2026
the South Bluff.”1 By withdrawing the LCP amendment, the City’s LCP does not have provisions for long-term adaptation policies to address coastal hazards along its shoreline or to protect the rights of the public and private property owners.
COASTAL HAZARDS, VULNERABILITY AND RISK ASSESSMENT and CoSMoS The 2018 CHVRA addendum compared the 2016 CHVRA assessments of beach erosion, bluff erosion, and coastal flood risk with results from the U.S. Geological Survey’s Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS 3.0 Phase 2, USGS 2017) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).
The addendum concluded that: (1) the CHVRA and CoSMoS flood hazard projections, both of which account for sea level rise, are generally consistent and appropriate for adaptation planning and coastal policy development; and (2) the CHVRA shoreline and bluff erosion projections are appropriate for adaptation planning and coastal policy development. Although CoSMoS Phase 2 bluff erosion projections indicate less erosion than the previous CoSMoS Phase 1 data (2016 study), the CHVRA bluff erosion projections (based on CoSMoS Phase 1), which were relied upon for the adopted Adaptation Plan, were deemed appropriate for the purposes of adaptation planning and coastal policy development “to ensure the City is not relying on an under-prediction of future bluff erosion.” However, contrary to the implication of this statement, use of CoSMoS Phase 1 projections for planning purposes is not merely a “conservative” option but an erroneous and scientifically unsubstantiated choice to use given that it is outdated and is based on unrealistic computer modeling, instead of current science as represented by the CoSMoS Phase 2 projections. Moreover, generalized, computer generated modeling projections are not a substitute for actual site-specific geotechnical investigation based on actual, local geology and structural characteristics, which is the most appropriate mechanism for determining appropriate and scientifically defensible site development parameters. In this instance, with respect to the North Bluff properties, site-specific geotechnical investigations have been completed (as discussed below) that represent the best available science as to those properties and the most appropriate planning mechanism for purposes of the Safety Element update as well as future development.
CoSMoS Phases 1 and 2 and Limitations
The Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS Phases 1 and 2) is a regional guidance tool developed by the U.S. Geological Survey to predict storm-induced coastal flooding, erosion, and cliff failures, and the authors of CoSMoS have made it well known in their published warnings and disclosures that CoSMoS is not intended for site-specific prediction of future bluff retreat and land use development.
Rather, it is intended to assist coastal planners in enhancing public safety and managing coastal resources in a very generalized way. Its primary purpose is hazard screening and regional planning.
CoSMoS Phase 1, used in the City’s 2016 CHVRA study, provides regional-scale assessments over broad coastal areas using lower-resolution data and generalized assumptions regarding coastal morphology (as opposed to site-specific geologic and geotechnical data considering the actual strength 1 June 8, 2021 Letter to CCC: https://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/7622/City-of-Del-Mar-Notice-of-Withdrawal-of-SLRLCPA-682021#:~:text=Approved%20by%20City%20Council%20on,during%20the%20City%20Council%20direction:
April 21, 2026 Item 7
- 4 - February 18, 2026
and structural characteristics of the localized sea cliffs). Regional erosion rates presented in the document National Assessment of Shoreline Change, Part 4: Historical Coastal Cliff Retreat along the California Coast, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1133 (Hapke & Reid, 2007) were used as the basis for the future cliff projections.
CoSMoS Phase 2 builds upon Phase 1 by incorporating higher-resolution nearshore data, improved wave transformation and runup calculations, and more refined representations of coastal processes such as wave-driven erosion, cliff failure, and beach-bluff interactions. Phase 2 is better suited for localized risk assessments and adaptation planning; however, it still does not replace site-specific geotechnical or engineering analyses because it does not incorporate or rely on actual site-specific geologic and geotechnical data concerning the actual strength and structural characteristics of the localized sea cliffs.
Although CoSMoS Phase 2 was better suited for localized risk assessment, it was not recommended for adoption as the primary policy to avoid revising previously adopted conservative erosion assumptions downward, as noted above. Modeled storm-driven erosion rates were used in the Phase 2 analysis in lieu of averaged low resolution measured historical retreat rates in Phase 1 largely derived from regional historic shoreline datasets (Hapke & Reid). Figure 1 (attached), from the CHVRA, presents a comparison of projected bluff-top positions from CoSMoS 3.0 Phase 1 and Phase 2 along North Beach, Del Mar, under various sea level rise scenarios.
These modeling tools are appropriate for screening-level analyses because they rely on overly generalized assumptions regarding bluff geometry, soil and bedrock properties, groundwater conditions, and erosion processes which are suitable for regional-level evaluation. Such assumptions cannot adequately represent localized conditions that control site-specific bluff failure mechanisms.
A proper, industry-standard, and legally defensible geotechnical investigation directly evaluates sitespecific conditions through direct measurements of bluff retreat rates from historical aerial photographs, field mapping, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analysis to identify actual failure mechanisms, and risks. Accordingly, site-specific geotechnical studies provide the most reliable basis for setback and stability determinations, while CoSMoS outputs are best considered as background information rather than substitutes for site-specific analysis in development review.
As indicated above, the authors of Open-File Report 2007-1133 and CoSMoS provide several disclaimers, including the following:
“Rates of change are being published for the purpose of regional characterization. The results and products prepared by USGS are not intended for comprehensive, detailed site-specific analysis of cliff retreat” (Hapke & Reid).
"The results and products prepared by the USGS are not intended for comprehensive detailed site-specific analysis of cliff retreat, nor are they intended to replace any official sources of cliff erosion information identified by local or state government agencies, or other federal entities that are used for regulatory purposes. Retreat rates presented herein may differ from other published rates, and differences do not necessarily indicate that the other rates are inaccurate.
April 21, 2026 Item 7
- 5 - February 18, 2026
Some discrepancies are expected, considering the many possible ways of determining cliff edge positions and rates of change, and the inherent uncertainty in calculating these rates. Rates presented in this report represent cliff retreat under past conditions. The results are not intended for predicting future cliff edge positions or future rates of cliff retreat” (Hapke & Reid). "This interactive mapping tool, including its data (tool and data) are provided for informational purposes. The tool and data are not for the purpose of providing advice or guidance on issues or activities related to its content including, but not limited to navigation, investment, development or permitting." CoSMoS Phase 1 – Cliffs Mapping Tool webpage. "The CoSMoS cliff projections are large-scale, long-term estimates of cliff behavior. They project the long-term rate that results from multiple cliff failures accumulating through time, rather than the exact timing of individual cliff failure events. If you're looking at 1) short-term site-specific behavior, as in "how soon is this cliff likely to fail", or 2) how a site-specific crossshore cliff profile might evolve through time, CoSMoS cliffs are probably not the right tool and should be supplemented by local, more technically detailed investigations." CoSMoS Phase 1 – Cliffs Mapping Tool webpage.
“CoSMoS was not developed to support site-specific engineering projects (e.g., site design) and is not necessarily compatible with engineering design codes and guidance. CoSMoS was designed to assess community-scale vulnerabilities and for broadly identifying where more detailed geo-technical engineering studies may be required” USGS CoSMoS 3.0 Frequently Asked Questions (Southern California Region).
SITE-SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL STUDY
Geocon performed comprehensive site-specific geotechnical investigations of the properties above North Beach between 2016 and 2019, with updates completed in 2023. These site-specific investigations included excavating 43 borings and trenches, performing 160 laboratory tests, conducting detailed bluff-face mapping, development of 25 geologic cross-sections, and slope stability analyses evaluating both static and seismic conditions. This work, combined with analyses of historical and future predicted erosion rates considering sea level rise, formed the technical basis for recommending a conservative project setback in accordance with accepted standards of practice and CCC sea level rise guidance.
To evaluate historic bluff retreat, a high precision orthophotograph was produced from a commissioned aerial survey conducted in 2019, supplemented by historical aerial photographs from 1932 and 1953. This provided an 87-year analysis period, compared to the 65-year timeframe used in CoSMoS Phase 1 which their time span ended in 2000. A photogrammetrist geo-referenced the historical imagery used by Geocon to ensure accuracy. Geocon’s analysis utilized 66 measurement stations at 20-foot intervals, compared to 4 low-resolution data points spaced approximately 300 feet apart along North Bluff in the CoSMoS Phase 1 study. Geocon’s historical rate calculation combined with the predicted future erosion rate over the life of the project, considering sea level rise incorporated into the slope stability analysis, supported the recommended building setback line. Figure 2, attached, presents the recommended building setback line based on Geocon’s site-specific study as well as the 2.0m SLR future cliff retreat positions published in CoSMoS 3.0, Phase 1 and Phase 2.
April 21, 2026 Item 7
- 6 - February 18, 2026
LiDAR
Policy 5.8 of the draft Safety Element calls for coordination with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) to obtain monitoring data related to ocean conditions and beach and bluff erosion to “inform plans for avoidance and minimization of shoreline hazards.” Scientists from SIO have been performing direct, high-resolution monitoring of the South Bluff portion of the Del Mar bluffs for roughly 25 years using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) to measure erosion and cliff change.
Early datasets were episodic and not uniform in resolution using airborne LiDAR, followed by intermittent airborne and terrestrial surveys.
Since 2018, high-frequency truck-mounted mobile LiDAR has been used which produces very high resolution, short interval change detection of bluff failures and retreat. This is the work most people are referring to when they hear “Scripps LiDAR measurements” today, and it is typically discussed in the context of bluff instability along South Beach and the LOSSAN rail corridor along the South Bluff. While Geocon understands that SIO has recorded episodic slope failures along North Bluff, to our knowledge, no peer-reviewed, long-term bluff-top retreat rates that are based on site-specific data have been published or adopted by regulatory agencies for setback determination at North Bluff, and therefore should not be relied upon, on its own, in lieu of a site-specific geotechnical investigation.
With respect to the North Bluff, it is Geocon’s opinion that the observational and event-based nature of the SIO data has not been developed, validated, or adopted as a regulatory or engineering basis for long-term bluff-top setback determination, and does not provide the engineering framework or sitespecific geotechnical investigation required for development-level setback decisions by the City of Del Mar. Additionally, the shorter duration of LiDAR monitoring does not capture the long-term episodic nature of bluff retreat along North Bluff evaluated in Geocon’s 87-year analysis.
NORTH BLUFF vs. SOUTH BLUFF
It appears that SIO researchers have recently focused their effort on South Bluff since it poses the greatest risk for instability due to its composition and has threatened the LOSSAN rail corridor with bluff collapse for some time. Geocon believes it’s important to provide some supplemental information to point out the differences in bluff composition and failure mode between South Bluff (rail corridor) and North Bluff considering the publicity that South Bluff is experiencing due to the rail line slope instability and bluff stabilization projects.
The South Bluff has a documented history of slope instability that has periodically affected the LOSSAN rail corridor, most recently prompting emergency repairs by SANDAG. Instability is primarily driven by exposed weak mudstone of the Del Mar Formation at the base of the South Bluff, which is highly susceptible to wave erosion and accelerated bluff retreat. Overlying low-cohesion terrace deposits are prone to toppling once this mudstone is undermined. This pattern of erosion and slope failure is recurrent along South bluff and is expected to intensify with sea level rise and major storm events. Groundwater migration from up-gradient irrigation and meteoric sources further exacerbates instability, with seepage commonly observed along the bluff face despite the installation of horizontal drains. As summarized in the City’s June 2021 letter to the CCC, there are over 500 homes along the South Bluff.
April 21, 2026 Item 7
- 7 - February 18, 2026
In contrast, the lower portions of the North Bluff that are exposed to wave erosion are composed of dense, well cemented siltstone and sandstone of the Del Mar Formation, overlain by very dense Torrey Sandstone. These competent materials form an approximately 30-foot-high near-vertical erosionresistant bluff face that functions similarly to a natural “sea wall,” resulting in substantially lower erosion and retreat rates compared to South Bluff. While six small sea caves have been identified at the base of the North Bluff, they are limited in size and generally oriented subparallel to the bluff face.
Due to their orientation, these features do not affect the site-specific building setback applied to future North Bluff development.
Bluff retreat at South Bluff is more rapid than that which occurs at the North Bluff because the failure modes are distinctly different. Bluff retreat at South Bluff is primarily due to rotational and translational landsliding resulting from a combination of inherently soft, highly fractured mudstone and heavy groundwater seepage. Bluff retreat at North bluff is primarily by infrequent small to moderate-sized block falls controlled by widely spaced bluff- parallel fractures and slow grain-by-grain erosion in wellcemented sandstone and siltstone.
SUMMARY
In summary, while the City’s draft Safety Element and its supporting CHVRA and CoSMoS analyses provide an appropriate regional framework for identifying coastal hazards and informing long-term policy and adaptation planning, it is Geocon’s position that these tools are not intended to replace sitespecific geotechnical evaluation for development-level decision making by the City. For the vacant and developed North Bluff properties, the comprehensive geotechnical investigations by Geocon, including detailed subsurface exploration, long-term historical and future erosion analysis considering the influence of sea level rise, bluff mapping, and slope stability modeling provides the most reliable and technically sound basis for evaluating bluff retreat and establishing building setbacks.
Additionally, regional modeling tools and observational LiDAR datasets, including those developed by USGS and SIO, are valuable for screening and monitoring purposes, but they have not been developed or validated with the duration and engineering analysis required to characterize localized geologic conditions, long-term recession rates and failure mechanisms, and determine building setback criteria for future development along North Bluff.
In conclusion, it is Geocon’s opinion that it would be inappropriate for the City to rely solely upon CoSMoS data in the City’s draft Safety Element for the North Bluff properties. Further, it is also Geocon’s opinion that the CoSMoS Phase 1 data should not be incorporated into the City’s policy framework. The City has copies of all site-specific investigations of the North Bluff properties, including the site-specific building setback to be applied to future North Bluff development. Accordingly, the sitespecific geotechnical studies by Geocon should remain the primary basis for setback determination and development planning for all North Bluff properties.
April 21, 2026 Item 7
- 8 - February 18, 2026
Should you have any questions regarding this correspondence, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON INCORPORATED
David B. Evans
CEG 1860
[email protected]
Benjamin T. Benumof
Ph.D., Esq.
[email protected]
Stanley Helenschmidt
GE 2064
[email protected]
Michael W. Hart
CEG 706
[email protected]
DBE:SH:BTB:MWH:kv
DBE:(e-mail) Addressee
April 21, 2026 Item 7
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 SHEET OF APPROX. SCALE DATE GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS 1" = NORTH BLUFF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA50' 02 - 18 - 2026 1 1 &L9FF RE8REA8 CO1PARISONS - CSS1SS 0, DEL 1AR V9LNERA&ILI8= ASSESS1EN8 2018 FIGURE 1 April 21, 2026 Item 7
Border Avenue DEL MAR SOLANA BEACH City CoSMoS Phase 1 Setback 2.0m SLR Bluff Setback per Geocon's Site Specific Analysis & SLR Bluff Setback per Geocon's
Site Specific Analysis & SLR
Bluff Setback per Geocon's
Site Specific Analysis & SLR CoSMoS Phase 2 Cliff Retreat 2.0m SLR APN: 2982411800 APN: 2982413400 APN: 2982412900 APN: 2990301600
APN: 2990301500
APN: 2990301400
APN: 2982413600
APN: 2982413500
APN: 2982410600
APN: 2982410700
6960 FLANDERS DRI:E SAN DIE+3 CALIF3RNIA 92121 2974PH3NE 858 5586900 FAX 858 5586159 SHEET OF SCALE DATE GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS 1" = NORTH BLUFF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA40' 02 - 18 - 2026 1 1 CLIFF RETREAT AND BLUFF SETBACK EXHIBITFIGURE 2 April 21, 2026 Item 7
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Arlene Tendick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 11:13 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Benjamin Benumof
Subject: Item 7 - Public Comment Graphic
Attachments: COSMOS.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Sarah,
Thank you for your time this morning. Attached is the graphic Dr. Benumof will be speaking to during Item 7 at this evening’s meeting. He would like it to be pulled up for him when it is his turn for public testimony.
Please confirm receipt of this email and that this request can be accommodated.
Thank you again!
Arlene
April 21, 2026 Item 7
April 21, 2026 Item 7
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Black, Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 11:36 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Leslie Devaney; Chris Cameron, City Attorney
Subject: Public Comment -- April 21, 2026 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 7, General Plan Amendment GPA 24-003, City of Del Mar Safety Element
Attachments: 2026.04.21 - Letter to Del Mar City Council.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good Afternoon –
Please see the attached correspondence addressed to the Mayor and City Councilmembers in regards to Agenda Item No. 7 on today’s City Council agenda. Please distribute a copy of this to each of the Mayor and Councilmembers and please also include this in the record of proceedings for this item.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
-Kelly Black
Kelly Black
Director
600 B Street, 17th Floor, San Diego, CA 92101
T: 619.595.3243
[email protected] | View Bio
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received the message in error. Then delete it. Thank you.
April 21, 2026 Item 7
64042843.1
Kelly Black
Director
[email protected]
600 B Street, 17th Floor
San Diego, California 92101
PH (619) 233-4100 | FX (619) 231-4372
fennemorelaw.com
April 21, 2026
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY – [email protected]
Honorable Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council City of Del Mar
1050 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Re: April 21, 2026 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 7 – General Plan Amendment GPA 24-003 – City of Del Mar Safety Element
Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council –
Our firm represents 101 Border, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company in connection with its property located at 101 Border (the “Property”) in the City of Del Mar (the “City”). Mr. and Mrs. Camille and Glenn El Khoury have owed the Property for some time and maintain a residence there for themselves and their extended family. The El Khoury family have no immediate plans for the Property other than maintaining the existing residence. We ask that this letter, along with the attached exhibit be included in the public hearing record for the Safety Update.
The Property will be affected by the City’s current effort to update the Safety Element of the General Plan (the “Safety Update”). We understand and appreciate the need for the Safety Update as part of the City’s ongoing and broader efforts to address, in a thoughtful and proactive manner, public safety, coastal erosion and related environmental hazards along with the ever changing environmental conditions and regulations that affect cities and counties throughout California. However, at the same time, the policies adopted through the Safety Update must be grounded in current science and must preserve the City’s own discretionary land use authority for future development projects. Moreover, in promulgating the Safety Update the City must avoid substituting generalized regional assumptions for site-specific facts.
Our principal concern is the City’s apparent reliance on data generated in 2016 by the U.S.
Geological Survey Coastal Storm Modeling System, Phase 1 (“CoSMoS”), to establish what is effectively an arbitrary “no development” line. As proposed, that line would have the practical effect of sterilizing portions of private property and foreclosing development opportunities based not on site-specific conditions, but on generalized regional modeling. The line also effectively makes the existing residence and uses of the Property non-compliant thus adding a layer of uncertainty for any future improvements to the existing residence.
April 21, 2026 Item 7
Honorable Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council April 21, 2026
64042843.1
Simply stated, the City’s proposed approach under the Safety Update is flawed.
We understand that the CoSMoS system now includes an updated Phase 2 model which, according to our consultant GeoCon Incorporated, is better suited for localized risk assessment but is still a generalized approach that does not account for site specific characteristics or information.
However, the City has apparently chosen to rely on the older CoSMoS Phase 1 model because it is more conservative. Conservatism, standing alone, is not a substitute for accuracy. Nor does a more restrictive model become the better planning tool merely because it produces a harsher result.
If the City is going to impose policies that materially affect the use of private property, those policies should be based on the best and most current information available—not simply the data set that yields the broadest limitation
Just as important, the City’s reliance on a generalized federal model is inconsistent with the City’s longstanding concern about broad policies that erode local land use authority and City Council discretion. Here, staff’s approach appears to do exactly that. Rather than preserving local decision-making and requiring project applicants to substantiate their proposals through propertyspecific evidence, the City is effectively delegating its judgment to a generalized regional study.
That is not careful planning; it is an abdication of the more disciplined, site-based analysis that coastal land use decisions demand.
Regional data and regional frameworks certainly have a role. They are useful starting points. But they should not be treated as the beginning and the end of the analysis. Large-scale modeling is not a replacement for project-specific investigation. It should inform local review, not displace it.
In contrast to the City’s approach, our client and neighboring property owners have retained GeoCon Incorporated, a highly qualified geotechnical and geological consulting firm, to conduct a more detailed and targeted analysis of the relevant properties. In a technical report dated February 18, 2026 (the “GeoCon Report”), GeoCon evaluated the City’s apparent reliance on the CoSMoS system and compared that generalized information with robust, site-specific findings developed through extensive field work and technical analysis. A copy of the GeoCon Report is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference.
GeoCon’s work is precisely the kind of evidence-based analysis the City should be encouraging. According to the GeoCon Report, GeoCon’s conclusions were informed by site specific borings and trenches, laboratory testing, detailed bluff face mapping, focused geologic cross-sections, and slope stability analyses under both seismic and static conditions. That sitespecific information was then used to develop a conservative project setback based on current accepted standards and practices, current sea level rise information, and–most importantly–actual conditions on the subject properties.
April 21, 2026 Item 7
Honorable Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council April 21, 2026
64042843.1
That is the proper standard.
The work performed by GeoCon illustrates how site safety concerns should be evaluated:
using current standards rather than standards that are now more than a decade old; using sitespecific testing and analysis rather than generalized computer modeling alone; and requiring property owners to undertake and fund the due diligence necessary to support any future development application. This approach does not weaken safety protections. It strengthens them by tying land use decisions to real conditions, current science, and verifiable project-level evidence.
For that reason, we urge the City Council not to adopt the Safety Update with a framework that converts regional modeling into fixed, site-specific development prohibitions. Instead, the Safety Update should expressly require site-specific studies for proposed development in coastal hazard areas and should direct that those studies be evaluated against the then-current best available data and accepted professional standards. At a minimum, such studies should be required to consider and reconcile information from both the CoSMoS system with site-specific geologic, geotechnical, and coastal process data developed through project-level investigation.
Such a policy and program can easily be crafted and included in the Safety Update. That policy and program would preserve the City’s authority, improve the scientific basis for decisionmaking, and ensure that development proposals are reviewed on their actual merits rather than screened out by generalized assumptions. It would also place responsibility where it belongs: on landowners and applicants to prove, through competent evidence, that a proposed project can be designed and constructed safely.
To be clear, what we are proposing is not a shortcut around safety. It is the opposite. It is a more rigorous, more scientifically sound, and more defensible framework—one that requires closer examination of sites when development is proposed. Safety is inherently site-specific. It therefore makes little sense to rely on generalized regional data as the sole basis for determining what portions of individual properties may or may not be developed.
We respectfully ask the Council to revise the proposed Safety Element accordingly and to direct staff to incorporate a policy framework that:
(1) treats regional studies as a baseline rather than a dispositive conclusion; (2) requires site-specific studies for properties affected by coastal hazard policies; and (3) evaluates proposed development using the best current data, accepted standards, and property-specific analysis available at the time of review.
April 21, 2026 Item 7
Honorable Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council April 21, 2026
64042843.1
Thank you for your consideration and for your attention to these important issues. We appreciate the City’s efforts to address public safety responsibly, and we urge the Council to take the extra time and direct staff to come back with an updated framework that protects public safety while also preserving sound science, local discretion, and fair property-specific review.
Sincerely yours,
FENNEMORE LLP
Kelly Black
KBLA/KBLA
April 21, 2026 Item 7
Exhibit A
April 21, 2026 Item 7
April 21, 2026 Item 7
April 21, 2026 Item 7
April 21, 2026 Item 7
April 21, 2026 Item 7
April 21, 2026 Item 7
April 21, 2026 Item 7
April 21, 2026 Item 7
April 21, 2026 Item 7
April 21, 2026 Item 7
April 21, 2026 Item 7
Del Mar Paving
April 21, 2026
City Council Meeting
Stephanie S. Covington | 858-204-2794 | [email protected] April 21, 2026 Item 12
Questions to consider as paving moves
forward:
• Street width vs. leaving strips
• Seams
• Berms
• Unpaved City property
• Quality of the work and materials used
• Prioritizing streets with self-paid undergrounding
© S. S. Covington, 2026
April 21, 2026 Item 12
Will you be leaving strips of asphalt unpaved?
Please pave the width of each street.
April 21, 2026 Item 12
Will you be leaving seams like
this?
Utilize a method to minimize the
damage that seams create and
increase longevity of paving.
April 21, 2026 Item 12
What about berms? Please repair and resurface when you repave.
April 21, 2026 Item 12
Berms left as is when two different streets were repaved.
April 21, 2026 Item 12
Please do not patch the area of 7th and Nob again. We need to be paved.
April 21, 2026 Item 12
Same throughout Del Mar
© S. S. Covington, 2026
April 21, 2026 Item 12
What are the paving plans or ?? plans for City property currently unpaved and not maintained?
April 21, 2026 Item 12
More City areas not paved or
maintained.
April 21, 2026 Item 12
When 7th and Nob is paved, what is the City’s plan for this area created by removing the turf?
April 21, 2026 Item 12
Area created by the City.
April 21, 2026 Item 12
Can you explain the quality of work expected in residential areas? This was paved in 2001, but by the resident and not the city. (25 years in use)
April 21, 2026 Item 12
This is a photo of paving done by the City in 2015.
(11 years in use)
April 21, 2026 Item 12
This is photo of paving by the City in 2021.
(5 years in use)
April 21, 2026 Item 12
(5 years in use)
Comparison
(25 years in use)
April 21, 2026 Item 12
Conclusions and Recommendations
• Pave the entire width of each street. Redo ”strip” areas that City created.
• Minimize seams and create long-lasting transitions.
• Repair and resurface berms.
• Area of 7th and Nob…no more patches. We already
paid for these in 2015.
• Walk the City to find neglected City property.
• Repair the areas negatively impacted by the City’s past actions.
• Have clear expectations about the quality of work and longevity of materials.
April 21, 2026 Item 12
Reminder
• Please prioritize those of us who self-paid for
undergrounding.
• The southern part of Del Mar would like to be
included in City projects and maintenance…just
like the northern part.
Thank you.
April 21, 2026 Item 12
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA QUESTIONS
April 21, 2026
Item 12 – Expanded Scope of Work Scenarios for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Pavement Management Program
1. After construction, will the Jimmy Durante Boulevard (JDB) project area have a PCI near 99?
Response: Yes.
2. Given expected traffic patterns/volumes, what type of periodic maintenance would it take to keep Jimmy Durante at a 95+ PCI? Is it crack-sealing and sealer-coat once every two years? As one of the bid alternate requests in the future, can the City get bid quotes on this type of preventative maintenance and what it costs on a square foot basis?
Response: Staff does not anticipate that JDB would need a seal coat or much maintenance over the next 5-10 years. The roadway will begin to deteriorate as soon as it is used, but due to the significant investment being made to fully repair the structural section and install 1.5” – 2.5” of new asphalt it is expected it would last 5-10 years before any significant degradation begins to show. Preventative maintenance typically is not required between a PCI of 90-100.
The City’s current Pavement Management Program includes crack-sealing and sealing for several residential streets. City staff no longer recommends slurry seals on major arterials like JDB. Historically, slurry seal low-bid costs have only come in 30% - 40% lower than thin grind and overlay costs, and slurry seals provide 20% of the useful life of grind and overlays. The City has also experienced performance problems with slurry seals along major arterials including:
1. Slurry seals result in uneven surfaces along the asphalt to concrete gutter transitions that have generated numerous complaints from bicycle groups.
Slurry seals leave a ¼ inch to ½ inch seam along the transition to concrete gutters and utility access covers that are in the bicycle lanes.
2. The slurry seal material does not add any structural value and has detached from asphalt surfaces in several areas.
3. The City installs thermoplastic striping (instead of standard traffic striping paint) along major arterials because of numerous reflectivity and safety benefits. Thermoplastic striping has a useful life of 10 years that would be covered by any slurry seal along the major arterials.
3. For the first $3 million of base projects and each of the next three $1 million increments, do we know how much of the City’s total road square footage those would each address?
April 21, 2026 Item 12
Response: Each $1,000,000 would repair 3% of the City’s pavement (just under 1 mile). A project unit cost of $6.50/SF was used for budget planning purposes.
Even though this assumes each road segment would get a complete grind and overlay, each road segment will be reviewed further during design for a sitespecific repair recommendation.
4. For the Jimmy Durante project, the cost to repair a road with an average PCI of 55 was $5.00 per square foot. Is the nature of the repair work for a road with a PCI of 60 much different from a 55 PCI road? And what would the cost per square foot be? When and how does the type of required repair work change as we get to roads with higher and better PCIs (i.e., 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90+)? Can staff or our consultant provide insights about the type of work and the relevant per foot cost? (Perhaps, information gained from the bid process and responses for the Jimmy Durante paving project could be helpful here.)
Response: The low-bid project cost of $5/Square Foot (SF) received for JDB was lower than anticipated and a reflection of what appears to have been short-term market conditions (low-bid price de-escalations). The project was a straightforward construction project that repaired a wide roadway with easy access; the contractor brought in multiple crews and utilize larger equipment, localized staging, and easy freeway access to lower its bid.
Generally speaking, the work to repair a road with a PCI of 60 is similar to a road with a PCI of 55. Both have degraded significantly, are considered “poor” condition, and reaching the end of their useful life. These segments would be evaluated for a moderate (2” or 2.5”) grind and overlay with localized dig-outs.
The sample pavement life cycle graphic below shows that after reaching a PCI of around 70-75, roads begin to deteriorate even more rapidly and are susceptible to more costly repairs. This is just a sample; roads normally follow this curve but at their own pace. The rate of roadway degradation depends on site-specific factors including base material used, exposure to water and roots, and traffic loading.
April 21, 2026 Item 12
Along the JDB stretch, the contractor experienced varying depth of existing asphalt, pavement materials, and base materials consistently. The 55 PCI listed was the average rating for the entire JDB road segment. Sections of JDB were above and below the PCI of 55, requiring a varying remedial repair approach including full-depth repairs, patch repairs, and grind and overlays of varying thicknesses.
From the PMP prepared by Bucknam in 2024, the unit costs for different types of repairs are summarized here:
Note, these should be escalated to current year costs, but is being provided to understand relative unit costs.
5. Can staff provide an estimate of what the City’s average PCI would improve to if we did the first $3 million of repairs? Would it go from something like 76 to 82? If we did the next $1 million, would that bring it from 82 to 85? Would the next $1 million get us from 85 to 88? Would the final $1 million get us from 88 to 91?
Response: This information is noted in the agenda report for Item 12, at the end of each Scenario description, and is further summarized in the table below:
Year Citywide
weighted PCI
FY 2023-2024 76
current 79
After FY 2026-2027 $3,000,000 project 82
After FY 2026-2027 $4,000,000 project (Scenario 1) 84
After FY 2026-2027 $5,000,000 project (Scenario 2) 85
After FY 2026-2027 $6,000,000 project (Scenario 3) 86
April 21, 2026 Item 12
6. What would it take for the City to get to a “proactive” and “preventative maintenance” road/pavement status, vs. our current status which seems to be a bit more “reactive”?
Response: The City’s current PMP includes proactive and preventative maintenance measures such as slurry seals, patch repairs, crack sealing, and grind and overlays of varying thicknesses. For example, the construction cost of JDB paving is $3.88/SF which is considered preventative maintenance cost levels throughout the industry. The JDB Paving project only included 10% full-depth repairs, which kept the asphalt paving price within the preventative maintenance range. A higher percentage of full-depth repairs would have resulted in higher asphalt paving prices of up to $15/SF.
7. What would the average PCI for Del Mar need to get to 90+? 95+? Response: Staff does not recommend investing to the point of achieving a citywide PCI of 95 because the costs and fiscal impacts would outweigh the benefits. The City would not get the full life-span out of its investment and would be replacing pavement that still has significant value. Most cities do not spend money on road segments with PCIs above 86 since they are considered “very good” and do not require corrective measures.
8. Does preventative maintenance consist of crack-sealing and curb-to-curb sealer coat? Anything else?
Response: Yes, preventative maintenance consists of crack-sealing and curb-tocurb sealer coat. Additional preventative maintenance measures include different types of asphalt sealers, patch repairs, and grind & overlay of varying depths.
9. How often would this need to be done to a road that is in good condition (i.e., 95+ PCI)? Every 2-3 years for busier roads? Every 4-5 years for less busy roads?
Response: Staff does not recommend spending any money on seal coats for anything with a PCI of 90 or above. Staff and City consultants recommend analyzing each pavement segment on a case-by-case basis for each segment’s condition, usage, and corrective measure.
10.What would the City expect “preventative maintenance” to approximately cost on a square foot basis?
Response: Up to $7/SF depending on measure selected.
April 21, 2026 Item 12
11.Can the City provide an estimate of what the total annual preventative maintenance cost would be if we got all roads up to a 95+ PCI status? Response: Not at this time.
12. In terms of funding, I do not believe Council has provided any direction on this yet. If there is Council consensus, can Council direct staff to dip into general fund reserves to fund some of this potential work? Response: At this time, there is Council consensus to proceed with $3M in FY 2026-27. The Scenarios provided in the 4/21 agenda report, as requested by the Council, would require additional allocation of funds ranging from $1M to $3M.
Staff will be able to provide detailed information regarding the fiscal impacts of the Scenarios provided in the 4/21 agenda report once the proposed FY 2026-27 Budget has been developed.
13.I know we will be discussing the 2027 budget in May and June, but will staff be able to provide any information from this at the 4/21 meeting on some potential budget sources of funding?
Response: In addition to the General Fund, the City also allocates TransNet, SB1 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), Gas Tax, and RTCIP funds to support the City's Pavement Management Program (PMP) projects.
Additionally, the Measure Q fund Maintenance of Effort (MOE) contribution is also used to support the PMP. New grants are another potential source but require time for grant seeking and application efforts, and then additional time for a granting agency decision and grant agreement execution, if awarded. More information about fiscal impacts related to the Scenarios outlined in the agenda report and potential sources of funds (e.g. General Fund Contingency, Reserves, etc.) will be discussed as part of the FY 2026-27 Budget Update process.
14.If there is Council consensus to “go big” on road repair, could Council direct staff to provide information on borrowing a modest amount of money (i.e., $2-$5 million from the I-bank) to do so?
Response: Yes, the Council has the authority to direct staff to explore outside sources of funding for this or any other purpose it deems appropriate. As a reminder, the IBank borrowing process can take up to six months to complete.
15.In Table 2 provided in the 4/21 staff report, can staff provide the size in square feet of the various projects? Can staff also provide what the cost in square foot terms was for each project/treatment, as well as the date of the project.
Response: See updated table on following page.
April 21, 2026 Item 12
16.The Bellaire Street project had a PCI of 78 and received an improvement of “Patch repairs, crack seal, and Type II slurry seal”. What is the PCI after the improvements and the expected longevity benefit for the road from these repairs?
Response: PCI was not assessed by consultant after improvements; however, staff estimated a 90 in the PCI model to reflect improvements made.
17.What was the total cost and cost per square foot for this treatment? Response: $1.98/SF
18.Do our consultants/staff have any insights as to what the cost per square foot is today?
April 21, 2026 Item 12
Response: A slurry seal coat would cost a minimum of $2/SF and could be more if significant patch repairs are required.
19.Is it possible to get some future bids for this type of work so that we can get a real world understanding of what this would cost for future potential projects?
Response: The consultants use recent low bid opening results in the region to determine unit costs for all engineering cost estimates.
20.The alley north of Bellaire Street had a PCI of 60 and got the same treatment as Bellaire. Was it part of the same project? What was the subsequent PCI? How long will it extend the longevity of the road?
Response: Yes, this was a part of the same CIP Project (2023 Water, Wastewater, and Pavement Improvement Project) as Bellaire Street with a PCI of 78. PCI was not assessed by consultant after improvements; however, staff did update it to an estimated 90 in the PCI model to reflect improvements made. It can extend the life of the road by 5 years.
21.Why did a road with a 60 PCI get this type of treatment instead of the 2” grind/overlay?
Response: Each road segment is evaluated for a customized approach to preventative maintenance. This alley is only 100 feet long and a significant portion of the roadway was affected by the waterline improvements. The utility trench restored a significant amount of the pavement in this short alley; additional patch repairs were completed, crack seal was placed, and staff assessed its condition was adequate to receive the type II slurry seal.
22.For the “Future Projects” listed in Attachment A of the 4/21 agenda report, would it be possible to include the total square footage of each road segment listed in an additional column? Can you also add the type of expected improvement work?
Response: See attached updated Attachment A. Since the design has not been initiated, it was assumed that a 2” grind and overlay at $6.50/SF would provide the budgetary estimate for City Council’s use in determining whether or not to add road segments to the scope of work. During the project design phase, each road segment will be evaluated for a customized approach to repairs.
23.The estimated cost per square foot being applied for all of the potential future projects is $6.50. This is 30% higher than $5.00 per foot rate for the Jimmy Durante project, which had a PCI of around 55. The future projects at $3-6 million are also meaningfully larger than the Jimmy Durante project April 21, 2026 Item 12
at $1.7 million. Wouldn’t there be economies of scale from a larger project for potential bidders?
Response: For the high-level analysis being completed by City Council, staff recommends using a project unit cost of $6.50/SF. This is a typical market rate for grind and overlay and gives a relative cost until the design is completed and the cost estimate is updated. There will be additional complexities introduced in the future $3-6m project compared to the JDB project that could drive up unit costs, including increased project duration, more traffic control setups, increased pedestrian and residential access and coordination, spread out asphalt deliveries increasing the unit cost, and requiring smaller equipment on narrower roads.
24.The $5.00 per foot cost for Jimmy Durante includes $3.83 per foot for construction (Hazard) and approximately $1.17 per foot for soft cost and management. Should those soft costs be stable regardless of what the per foot rate is from the bidding contractors? Should the per foot rate for soft costs go down if we have a larger overall project size? i.e. could the soft costs go to $0.75 per foot if we are doing $6 million of work? Response: The soft costs depend on the project schedule more than anything else.
The construction management, inspection, and testing costs are directly related to number of days the project takes to complete. Staff recommends maintaining a 10- 15% construction management, inspection, and testing cost until the project is designed and the contracts are negotiated.
25.The staff report talks about the cost of oil impacting asphalt prices. My understanding is that asphalt is 90%+ aggregate and only about 5% bitumen/petroleum. The cost of aggregate is unchanged in the last few months and the cost of bitumen is only up about 20% from December 2025.
My math says the overall impact to the cost per square foot for the actual asphalt is +1%, pretty small. It seems that estimating costs over the past few months has been challenging and could be so going forward. Is a reasonable course of action to just go and get bids and bid alternates for a variety of projects and see what they come in at? Staff and Council can then review the actual bids and decide what it wants to do.
Response: This information was included in the agenda report for Council’s awareness that experienced paving contractors in the area are reporting market volatility after a recent very favorable bidding environment. Staff does not recommend market testing to determine unit costs; the consultant will collect recent bids from other nearby cities with similar projects during the preparation of the engineer’s estimate. Once the desired project is designed and bid, the City Council always has the discretion to reject all bids. Staff will structure the bid schedule in a way to maintain flexibility, including bid alternates.
April 21, 2026 Item 12
26.Is there a possibility that the contractor bids for this future project/s, which are collectively larger than Jimmy Durante, could be near or below the $3.83 per foot rate for the Jimmy Durante project? If the bids and bid alternates result in a total cost per foot is meaningfully lower than $6.50 per foot estimate, does that mean Del Mar could improve more roads than are identified for the current $6 million maximum?
Response: Staff cannot predict how a contractor will bid a project and when it chooses to lower, reduce, or eliminate profits. Contractors bid at cost sometimes to keep their staff busy and pay equipment loans, but this is unpredictable and not controlled by the City. As was the case with the Jimmy Durante paving project, if bids come in lower than expected, Council would have the ability to allocate those funds to future paving projects.
27.For all of the proposed future projects, it appears that the cost being applied is at $6.50 per square foot. Does this mean that all of the roads are getting the 2” grind + overlay? It appears to be the same whether the roads have a PCI of 60, or a PCI of 73. Can staff explain the approach here? Response: This is an average unit cost that staff recommends using for budget planning purposes in the absence of an actual design that would provide a more refined cost estimate. The reported PCIs are an average for the entire road segment. Each road segment will be analyzed during the design for the most costeffective preventative maintenance measure. There will be some areas that require more substantial structural repairs and some that will require only patch repairs and slurry seal. Staff structures the bid so that we apply the correct preventative maintenance strategy and can adjust during construction if field conditions change.
28.In terms of PCI rating, at what point does a road get “patch repairs, crack seal, Type II slurry seal” instead of the 2” grind and overlay? Response: Each road segment is evaluated on a case-by-case basis for most appropriate remedial measure. Generally, patch repairs and slurry seal would be considered if the road was between a PCI of 70-90. In 2024, the City Council established a PCI of 70 as the desired minimum level of service, meaning that road segments below that minimum level of service would be considered for a grind and overlay and those above should first be evaluated and considered for patch repairs and a seal coat.
29.What is the expected construction-only cost per square foot for patch repairs, crack-seal and slurry seal?
Response: It depends on the percentage of patch repairs and is site-specific.
April 21, 2026 Item 12
30.What is the expected total cost per square foot (construction + soft cost) for this type of work?
Response: It depends on the quantity of patch repairs and is site-specific, but would be at least $2/SF.
31.Are there other types of preventative maintenance beyond “patch repair, crack seal and slurry seal”? If so, can staff provide commentary? Response: Additional preventative maintenance measures include different types of asphalt sealers, patch repairs, and grind & overlay of varying depths.
32.Can staff provide commentary on road longevity benefits of applying a 2” grind/overall treatment vs. crack and slurry seal?
Response: A grind and overlay can last 20-30 years while a slurry seal can last 5 years.
33.If there is Council consensus, would it be possible to have an additional bid alternate that includes a focus on certain streets that would benefit from timely preventative maintenance?
Response: Yes
34.Does Del Mar’s moderate climate make it easier to maintain roads compared to other areas of the state and country that get snow/ice or get very hot such as the desert?
Response: Yes, the moderate weather conditions in Del Mar create an environment that is beneficial to the asphalt, although the salt air is less desirable.
The minimal rain is advantageous since water infiltration degrades roads quicker.
Salt and other surface treatments to melt snow/ice damages roadways significantly. Also, intense sunlight found in hotter desert climates and significant rapid fluctuations in temperatures accelerate the degradation of roads.
35.How do decisions on Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 affect the work identified in the attachments as “Targeted for FY 2027-28,” etc.?
Response: The paving segments on Attachment A identified as “Targeted for FY 2026/2027” and “Targeted for FY 2027/2028” are scheduled based on the completion of nearby Utility Undergrounding Program work. This work would continue to be recommended for those years regardless of the City Council’s decisions on Scenarios 1, 2, and 3. Work identified in Scenarios 1, 2, or 3, that is not accelerated for completion in FY 2026-27, would be incorporated into future year paving projects based on funding availability.
April 21, 2026 Item 12