In accepting the Cal OES fire engine, the Fire Department will be responsible for staffing and responding with the engine to support statewide emergencies. Responding to these statewide emergencies will also provide valuable experience for the City’s firefighters.
Reimbursement of associated personnel costs associated with staffing and responding with the fire engine would be provided by the State, in addition to a City administrative fee, which is currently set at 15 percent.
The City, at a minimal cost as described below, would also benefit from the ability to place the fire engine into service if needed due to an emergency or when one of the City’s fire engines is out of service. The Type VI Engine can maneuver into smaller places and adding this engine would increase the department’s emergency response capabilities.
The apparatus cannot be used as a “frontline” engine but can be used as a backup if an apparatus is out of service.
Staff does not anticipate that receipt of this apparatus will cause any substantive changes to the department’s expenses including personnel overtime. The City maintenance costs of this fire apparatus are minimal when compared against the benefit of having an extra fire engine available locally. Repairs with a cost under $100 would be the responsibility of the City. Any repairs over $100 would be paid by the State. The City will also need to cover staff time and travel costs to retrieve the engine from Sacramento, funds for which are currently available in the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Operating and Capital Budget. Lastly, the City will also be required to insure the apparatus, which will be reflected in the Fiscal Year 2027-2028 property insurance premiums covering all insured City property.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with Council approval of this item. Sufficient funds for staff time and potential minor repairs are already included in the adopted Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Operating and Capital Budget. The majority of costs related to personnel response for statewide mutual aid will be reimbursed by the State.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The proposed City Council action does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it will not have a potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA. No further action under CEQA is required.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Assignment of Equipment Form, and Agreement for Temporary Transfer of Vehicular Equipment
2 August 25, 2026 Item 11
GAVIN NEWSOM
GOVERNOR
CAROLINE THOMAS JACOBS
DIRECTOR
3650 SCHRIEVER AVENUE MATHER, CA 95655
FIRE AND RESCUE DIVISION
PHONE: (916) 845-8711 FAX: (916) 845-8396
8/11/2026
Ashley Jones, City Manager
City of Del Mar Fire Department
500 Lomas Santa Fe
Solana Beach, CA 92075
Dear Ashley Jones
You will find enclosed two copies of Assignment of Equipment Form, and Agreement for Temporary Transfer of Vehicular Equipment covering the transfer of Cal OES Fire Engine Number: 6621to the City of Del Mar Fire Department. The agreement is effective August 25, 2026.
Please have the authorized official sign both copies of the above-mentioned documents and return one original set to our office. Cal OES cannot transfer the fire engine to your agency until this signed agreement is returned.
Cal OES must also be furnished with a Certificate of Insurance, or a letter certifying selfinsurance in the amounts required, in accordance with Paragraph 11 of the Agreement for Temporary Transfer of Vehicular Equipment.
If you have any questions regarding this transfer, please feel free to contact our office.
Sincerely,
BRIAN S. MARSHALL
State Fire and Rescue Chief
BSM/
Enclosures
Cc: Jeremy Mitchell, Region VI Fire and Rescue Coordinator Dan Barron, Operational Area Coordinator
Art Torrez Cal OES Fire and Rescue Deputy Chief, South Operations Randy Unkovich, Cal OES Fire and Rescue Assistant Chief Tony Rouhotas, Cal OES fire and Rescue Assistant Chief
Docusign Envelope ID: 6327A0D8-1AD8-865B-82B1-CB6EABA7FF25 3 August 25, 2026 Item 11
State of California
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Fire and Rescue Division
1 10/2020
Agreement for Temporary Transfer of Vehicular Equipment-Type VI Engine
AGREEMENT FOR TEMPORARY TRANSFER OF
VEHICULAR EQUIPMENT-TYPE VI FIRE ENGINE
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this August 25, 2026, by and between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA acting by and between its duly appointed, qualified Director of the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), hereinafter called the "STATE," and the City of Del Mar Fire Department, acting by and through its duly appointed, qualified and acting officers, hereinafter called "TRANSFEREE",
W I T N E S S E T H:
IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED between the parties hereto as follows:
1. The STATE hereby transfers possession to TRANSFEREE and TRANSFEREE hereby accepts possession from STATE of the fire engine and equipment listed on the attached Exhibit "A" which is by this reference made a part hereof, for the period commencing August 25, 2026, through August 25, 2036, for the following all-hazard events, emergency incidents, civil defense, and disaster purposes, namely:
Mutual aid, multiple alarm events and emergency incidents, emergency incidents threatening properties vital to national defense or important military installations, parades and displays, training of regular, volunteer and auxiliary firefighters and temporary standby for assignee's regular fire engine and the regular fire engines of other fire departments while out of service for repairs. a. Vehicle Description: 2020 HME/Ahrens-Fox Type 6 Wildland Fire Engine Vehicle Designation: 6621
Vehicle License Number: 1606275
Vehicle Identification Number: 1FD0W5HT1LED22966
Value of Vehicle: $215,599.00
Value of Hose and Appliances: $41,826.00
b. Equipment inventories (Exhibit "A") may by mutual concurrence of the STATE and TRANSFEREE be changed during the term of this agreement, utilizing property accountability procedures established or approved by the STATE.
A. Transfer of Possession
The following outlines the steps required to complete the transfer of the fire engine from the STATE to the TRANSFEREE:
a. The STATE shall send two copies of the Assignment of Equipment Form and Agreement for Temporary Transfer to the TRANSFEREE for signatures. b. The TRANSFEREE shall obtain the necessary signatures from the Fire Chief. c. The TRANSFEREE shall send the completed Assignment of Equipment Form and Agreement for Temporary Transfer forms back to the STATE. d. The STATE shall then contact the TRANSFEREE to schedule a date for the transfer to take place.
e. The TRANSFEREE shall travel to the Cal OES Fire and Rescue Fleet Services Docusign Envelope ID: 6327A0D8-1AD8-865B-82B1-CB6EABA7FF25 4 August 25, 2026 Item 11
State of California
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Fire and Rescue Division
2 10/2020
Agreement for Temporary Transfer of Vehicular Equipment-Type VI Engine Division, located at:
3791 Bradview Drive
Sacramento, California 95827
f. TRANSFEREE shall be responsible for all travel expenses (to and from) including, vehicle, fuel, food, and lodging.
g. The STATE shall provide the TRANSFEREE with a comprehensive training session specific to the operation and maintenance of the fire engine. h. TRANSFEREE shall notify the STATE and the appropriate CAL OES Fire and Rescue Region Assistance Chief(s), Operational Area and Region Dispatch centers of the fire engine assignment and entering the fire engine information into the resource ordering system of record.
The following outlines the steps required to complete the return of the fire engine from the TRANSFEREE to the STATE:
a. This section does not apply to the return of the fire engine from the TRANSFEREE to the STATE when a new or replacement fire engine is assigned by the STATE to the TRANSFEREE.
b. The TRANSFEREE shall notify the STATE of the intent to return the fire engine to the STATE.
c. The STATE shall coordinate a pre-inspection to be performed on the fire engine to determine the condition of the fire engine and equipment inventory of equipment. This pre-inspection shall be performed by the Cal OES Fire and Region Division Assistance Chief.
d. The TRANSFEREE shall return the fire engine to the Cal OES Fire and Rescue Fleet Services Division, located at:
3791 Bradview Drive
Sacramento, California 95827
e. TRANSFEREE shall be responsible for all travel expenses (to and from) including, vehicle, fuel, food, and lodging.
f. The STATE shall preform a final inspection on the fire engine and the equipment inventory.
B. Housing, Maintenance, Repair and Replacement
During the term of this transfer, TRANSFEREE agrees to adequately house in an enclosed secure structure, staff, operate, maintain and repair (consistent with section 2 b.) said fire engine and equipment (hereinafter collectively referred to as the ”fire engine" except where it is desired to refer to equipment alone, in which case the term "equipment" will be used) at its sole cost and expense, save as otherwise expressly provided in this agreement. Fire engine shall be housed on property of the TRANSFEREE in a manner to provide reasonable protection against inclement weather, sabotage, theft or malicious damage. Fire engine shall be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations, and in such condition that it is available for immediate emergency use. Maintenance shall include care of hose, batteries, tires, appliances, lubrication and fuel, general cleaning and polishing, minor body repairs and periodic testing. Repairs shall include, without being limited to, motor tune-ups, pump repairs, transmission, differential and all running gears, brake and exhaust systems, cooling devices Docusign Envelope ID: 6327A0D8-1AD8-865B-82B1-CB6EABA7FF25 5 August 25, 2026 Item 11
State of California
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Fire and Rescue Division
3 10/2020
Agreement for Temporary Transfer of Vehicular Equipment-Type VI Engine including radiator, pump packing, equipment assigned to apparatus and so forth. a. Repairs up to and including $100.00 for each individual item of repair shall be the responsibility of TRANSFEREE.
b. Repairs exceeding $100.00 for each individual item of repair shall be the responsibility of STATE; however, a $100.00 deductible shall apply, unless in the judgment of the STATE the repairs results from misuse or negligence on the part of TRANSFEREE in the maintenance or use of the fire engine, in which event the cost of each such item of repair above $100.00 shall also be the responsibility of TRANSFEREE. In no event shall TRANSFEREE arrange for repairs costing above $100.00 for any item of repair, whether it deems the same to be the responsibility of STATE or TRANSFEREE, without first obtaining authorization in writing from STATE.
c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, replacement of hose, batteries and tires shall be the responsibility of STATE, save to the extent STATE deems damage thereto to be the result of negligence or misuse on the part of TRANSFEREE, in which event TRANSFEREE will bear such portion of the replacement cost thereof as the STATE deems equitable. Procurement of tires, hose and batteries is subject to State fiscal policies and procedures, and written approval must be obtained by STATE prior to procurement. d. Maintenance and repairs must be requested and authorized pursuant to Cal OES, Fire and Rescue Division Operations Bulletin # 18, which is here by incorporated into this agreement by reference.
e. Repair or replacement of the fire engine transferred hereunder which is consumed, lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed during mutual aid operations when STATE has dispatched or directed the dispatch of said apparatus through Regional or Operational Area Fire and Rescue Coordinators, or when STATE has reassigned said apparatus pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 10 of this agreement, shall be the responsibility of STATE However, in the event that any such loss or damage is due to the negligence of TRANSFEREE, under such circumstances, TRANSFEREE shall be liable therefore to the extent that the STATE deems equitable. TRANSFEREE agrees that it will assume responsibility in full for the repair or replacement of equipment which has been consumed, lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed in operations other than referred to in this paragraph.
3. Inspection of Apparatus
TRANSFEREE agrees that representatives of STATE and other authorized State personnel may inspect the fire engine at any time, with or without advance notice.
4. Staffing
Reasonable and continual training shall be carried on so that trained personnel shall at all times be available to staff and operate said fire engine. The TRANSFEREE Docusign Envelope ID: 6327A0D8-1AD8-865B-82B1-CB6EABA7FF25 6 August 25, 2026 Item 11
State of California
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Fire and Rescue Division
4 10/2020
Agreement for Temporary Transfer of Vehicular Equipment-Type VI Engine shall provide personnel to staff the transferred fire engine per FIRESCOPE ICS standards with the expectation of staffing with three trained fire personnel for out of operational area assignments.
Per the California Fire Assistance Agreement, personnel under this Agreement are expected to be available for a minimum of seven (7) days (elapsed time) excluding travel, before needing replacement, regardless of the number of assignments from original dispatch. When local government personnel, staffing the fire engine, are committed to extended assignments there may be a need to replace or rotate personnel. Personnel rotation will follow the direction outlined in the California Fire Assistance Agreement when assigned to an incident within California. Crew rotation for incidents outside of California shall be consistent with the appropriate forest’s agencies policy and coordinated by STATE.
5. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and Specialized Equipment In addition to providing the standard complement of firefighting PPE, it shall be the TRANSFEREE’S responsibility to provide its personnel with all other PPE that may be required by NFPA 1901, other NFPA Standards, and 8 CA ADC § 3401 et seq. This shall include, but not be limited to, one Traffic Vest (ANSI / ISEA 207) for each seating position. In addition, we recommend chainsaw chaps be provided.
6. Training
Personnel assigned shall meet wildland fire and ICS standards established in the California Incident Command Certification System (CICCS) (January 2014 version) or NWCG 310-1 (October 2020 version). Personnel staffing STATE Type VI Fire Engines shall include the following qualifications: Company Officer (Engine Boss/ENGB), Apparatus Operator (engineer), and Firefighter (FFT1 or FFT2).
TRANSFEREE agrees to participate in an off-road train-the-trainer course and to adopt an off-road training program for their respective agencies.
7. Dispatching
All movement of the fire engine shall be handled through the official dispatching channels of TRANSFEREE. TRANSFEREE dispatchers will recognize and act on all official requests for movement of the fire engine in conformance with the Fire and Rescue Annex (California Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System) to the State Emergency Plan and its subsequent revisions. STATE reserves the right to dispatch, direct the dispatch of, or temporarily reassign the said apparatus and equipment whenever, in the opinion of the Director of the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, their representatives, or Operational Area and Regional Fire and Rescue Coordinators, such equipment and apparatus is essential to the protection of life and property in another jurisdiction or in the best interest of the STATE.
8. Mutual Aid Response
Docusign Envelope ID: 6327A0D8-1AD8-865B-82B1-CB6EABA7FF25 7 August 25, 2026 Item 11
State of California
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Fire and Rescue Division
5 10/2020
Agreement for Temporary Transfer of Vehicular Equipment-Type VI Engine Procedures for mutual aid response shall be in accordance with California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid Plan.
9. Reimbursable Response
Reimbursement for mutual aid may be provided pursuant to a governor’s disaster proclamation or when conditions warrant invoking the California Fire Assistance Agreement, the State of Nevada Cooperative Agreement, the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, or the Interstate Compact as appropriate.
There is no other existing provision for mutual aid reimbursement.
10. Temporary Use
TRANSFEREE shall be permitted to use the fire engine for temporary cover of fire stations when emergency conditions warrant, or when regular fire engine is out of service for repairs. In either case, the TRANSFEREE shall immediately notify the Operational Area Dispatch Center. The TRANSFEREE further agrees that Cover-in or Standby of the fire engine exceeding 90 days is at the discretion of the STATE.
11. Temporary Transfer
a. A transfer of the fire engine or any portion thereof by TRANSFEREE for any period not exceeding seven consecutive days within a given Operational Area may be made with the consent of the Operational Area Fire and Rescue Coordinator and the STATE, providing that at the time such fire engine is received, such Temporary Transferee furnish TRANSFEREE and STATE a letter to the effect that Temporary Transferee assumes all obligations and criteria of TRANSFEREE with respect to such fire engine under this agreement during the period of transfer, including insurance coverage in accordance with Paragraph 13 or 14, as appropriate, and a copy of this Agreement is provided to the Temporary Transferee. Any transfer by TRANSFEREE for a period of more than seven consecutive days shall be subject to authorization by the STATE and execution of an “Agreement for the Temporary Transfer of Vehicular Equipment”, with the agency requesting the transfer.
b. Whenever fire engine is transferred in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 11.a, regular TRANSFEREE shall be relieved of its obligations under this agreement during such period of transfer.
c. Complete a written Temporary Cal OES Fire Engine Transfer Record, Exhibit “C”. The TRANSFEREE will retain one copy, the Temporary Transferee will retain one copy, and one copy will be forwarded to the STATE.
12. Reports and Records
TRANSFEREE shall maintain daily and monthly reports on the details of fire engine Docusign Envelope ID: 6327A0D8-1AD8-865B-82B1-CB6EABA7FF25 8 August 25, 2026 Item 11
State of California
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Fire and Rescue Division
6 10/2020
Agreement for Temporary Transfer of Vehicular Equipment-Type VI Engine Use on OES F-101 Form. A Smoke Opacity Test, Pump Test, and Hose Test, and Ladder Test shall be completed annually. Written results of all tests and reports shall be forwarded to the STATE, by the end of the calendar year. A recent copy of the tests and reports shall be maintained in the vehicle logbook.
13. Report of Accidents
TRANSFEREE shall immediately notify STATE following any and all accidents involving this fire engine. It shall be the responsibility of TRANSFEREE to fill out State Form 270, "Report of Automobile Accident," and file the report with the STATE. A copy of this report shall be retained by the TRANSFEREE and the original and four copies forwarded to the STATE.
14. Insurance Protection (Non- State Agencies)
a. TRANSFEREE agrees forthwith to furnish evidence of insurance protecting the legal liability of the TRANSFEREE and the STATE for liability and/or property damage with a combined single limit of 1,000,000.00 per occurrence, by means of a Certificate of Insurance naming State of California as Additional Insured. Said certificate shall contain an agreement by the insurance company that it will not cancel said policy without 15 days prior written notice to the STATE and that the STATE is not liable for the payment of any premiums or assessments thereon. Said certificate must include the description of the fire engine including VIN, state license number and fire engine number.
b. In the event the TRANSFEREE is self-insured, TRANSFEREE in lieu of a certificate of insurance shall furnish the STATE a written statement of such fact. In such event TRANSFEREE agrees to hold the STATE harmless from any personal injury or property damage claims arising out of its maintenance, use or operation of the fire engine under the terms of this agreement. c. Physical damage insurance, including collision coverage and comprehensive coverage, shall be obtained. The STATE will be named as a loss payee. The description of the vehicle and the necessary amount of insurance required is outlined in attached Exhibit "C" which is by this reference made a part hereof.
15. Insurance Protection (State Agencies)
Any insurance necessary for coverage of the fire engine shall be the sole responsibility of the department having custody of the vehicle. TRANSFEREE agrees to report apparatus as being under its control to the Insurance Officer, Department of General Services.
16. Termination of Agreement
a. Either party may terminate this agreement upon 14 days written notice to other party, or TRANSFEREE may relinquish or STATE may repossess any Docusign Envelope ID: 6327A0D8-1AD8-865B-82B1-CB6EABA7FF25 9 August 25, 2026 Item 11
State of California
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Fire and Rescue Division
7 10/2020
Agreement for Temporary Transfer of Vehicular Equipment-Type VI Engine portion of the fire engine upon like notice to the other party, except that STATE may repossess any portion thereof without written notice whenever it deems the same is not being maintained in accordance with this agreement.
b. Upon the termination of this agreement, TRANSFEREE agrees to return said fire engine in the same condition as received, reasonable wear and tear excepted.
c. As inventory changes occur, or items of equipment are replaced, deleted or added by the STATE or replaced by TRANSFEREE, it is mutually agreed that no amendment to this agreement need be made at the time of the change; provided however, at the termination of this agreement a complete reconciliation of all equipment will be made. TRANSFEREE further agrees that all replacements for fire engine or equipment will be made with identical or substantially like items as approved by the STATE. d. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to create a new property interest or right of action for the TRANSFEREE.
17. Unauthorized Use of STATE Fire Engine and Equipment Use of this fire engine other than as specified in paragraph 1 will be considered a breach of this agreement.
18. Use of Radio Equipment
a. STATE will furnish at STATE's sole cost, radio equipment installed in the fire engine to be operated on the current approved State radio load. b. STATE agrees to maintain said radio equipment without cost to TRANSFEREE. c. The TRANSFEREE agrees to operate said radio equipment in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Federal Communications Commission.
d. Ownership of said equipment is in the STATE, and all applications to the Federal Communications Commission seeking authority to add, modify or replace radio equipment covered by this agreement shall be made by and in the name of the State of California. To activate this agreement and in compliance with the control requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the STATE hereby deputizes the Chief of the agency of said TRANSFEREE, and such volunteers, regularly employed and salaried assistants as shall be designated by the Chief of the agency as his agents to operate said radio equipment as specified in paragraph ''c" above. e. STATE assumes no liability hereunder for claims or losses accruing or resulting to any person, firm or corporation furnishing or supplying work, services or material or services in connection with the performance of this agreement Docusign Envelope ID: 6327A0D8-1AD8-865B-82B1-CB6EABA7FF25 10 August 25, 2026 Item 11
State of California
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Fire and Rescue Division
8 10/2020
Agreement for Temporary Transfer of Vehicular Equipment-Type VI Engine or for any claims and losses accruing or resulting to any person, firm or corporation injured or damaged by performance of either party hereunder.
19. Notices
All notices herein provided to be given, or which may be given by either party to the other shall be deemed to have been fully given when made in writing and deposited in the U.S. mail, registered and postage prepaid and addressed as follows: To the TRANSFEREE at City of Del Mar Fire Department, 2200 Jimmy Durante Blvd., Del Mar, CA 92014, and to the STATE at Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, Fire and Rescue Division, 3650 Schriever Avenue, Mather, CA 95655. The address to which notices shall or may be mailed as aforesaid to either party may be changed by written notice given by such party to the other, as hereinabove provided; but nothing herein contained shall preclude the giving of any such notice by personal service.
20. Alterations and Variations
It is mutually understood and agreed that no alteration or variation of the terms of this agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and that no oral understanding or agreements not incorporated herein, and no alterations or variations of the terms hereof unless made in writing between the parties hereto shall be binding on any of the parties hereto.
21. Waivers
The STATE may in its sole discretion and for such good cause as it determines waive in writing in whole or in part any requirement of this agreement that fire engine and/or equipment shall be maintained in operating condition, or repaired, or replaced, providing that any such waiver shall be applicable only to the specific fire engine or equipment to which it refers. No failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall be construed as a waiver of the provision. Any waiver, in order to be effective, must be in writing and shall only be effective for the instance specified in the writing.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this agreement upon the date first above written.
TRANSFEREE: STATE OF CALIFORNIA:
_City of Del Mar Fire Department ___________Caroline Jacobs Thomas _ Director
Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
By: By:
Ashley Jones, City Manager Brian S. Marshall
State Fire and Rescue Chief
Docusign Envelope ID: 6327A0D8-1AD8-865B-82B1-CB6EABA7FF25 11 August 25, 2026 Item 11
State of California
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Fire and Rescue Division
10/2020
Agreement for Temporary Transfer of Vehicular Equipment-Type VI Fire Engine EXHIBIT “A”
EQUIPMENT INVENTORY: Type VI Fire Engine
QUAN DESCRIPTION OES
NUMBER
SERIAL
NUMBER
FIRE HOSE
3 1 ½” NH X 50’, Structural Hose
1 1 ½” NH X 35’, Structural Hose
1 1 ½” NH X 35’, Wildland Hose
1 3” NH X 15’ Soft Suction Hose
8 3” NH X 50 Structural Hose
3 1 ½” NH X 100’, Wildland Hose
3 1” NPSH X 100’, Wildland Hose
3 5/8” GHT X 100’, Wildland Hose
HOSE REEL FIRE HOSE
2 ¾” NPSHX 50’, Hose Reel
SUCTION HOSE
2 3” NH X 9’, Suction Hose
1 1 ½” NH X 8, Suction Hose
NOZZLES
1 1 ½” NH Nozzle Structural, 30-125 GPM, Pistol Grip
1 1 ½” NH Nozzle, Structural, 30-125 GPM, Break-Apart
2 1 ½” NH Nozzle, Wildland, 20-60 GPM
1 1” NPSH Foam Nozzle, Pistol Grip
1 ¾” GHT Nozzle, Wildland
4 1” NPSH Nozzle, Wildland, 10-23 GPM
1 1 ½” NH Nozzle, Wildland w/ Foam Nozzle Attached
ADAPTERS AND FITTINGS
1 2 ½” NH Double Male
1 2 ½” NH Double Female
1 2 ½” NH-F X 1 ½” NH-M Reducer
1 1 ½” NH Double Male
2 1 ½” NH Double Female
1 1” NPSH Double Male
1 1” NPSH Double Female
1 1 ½” NH-F X 1” NH-M Reducer
2 1 ½” NH-F X 1” NPSH-M Reducer
3 1” NPSH-F X ¾” GHT-M Reducer
1 1 ½” NH-F X 2 ½” NH-M Increaser
1 ¾” GHT-F X 1” NSPH-M Increaser
1 1” NPSF-F X 1 ½” NH-M Increaser
1 3” NH-F X 2 ½” NH-F Adapter
1 1 ½” NPSH-F X 1 ½” NH-M Adapter
1 1 ½” NH-F X 1 ½” NPSH-M Adapter
1 1” NH-F X 1” NPSH-M Reducer
1 1 ½” NH-F X 1 ½” NH-M In-Line Shut-Off
1 1” NPSH-F X 1” NPSH-M In-Line Shut-Off
5 ¾” GHT-F X ¾” GHT-M In-Line Shut-Off
HOSE APPLIANCES
1 2 ½” NH-F X 1 ½” NH-F X 1 ½” NH-F Gated Wye
2 1 ½” NH-F X 1 ½” NH-M X 1 ½” NH-M Gated Wye
A-1
Docusign Envelope ID: 6327A0D8-1AD8-865B-82B1-CB6EABA7FF25 12 August 25, 2026 Item 11
State of California
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Fire and Rescue Division
10/2020
Agreement for Temporary Transfer of Vehicular Equipment-Type VI Fire Engine 1 1” NPSH-F X 1” NPSH-M X 1” NPSH-M Gated Wye
1 ¾” GHT-F X ¾” GHT-M X ¾” GHT-M Gated Wye
3 1 ½” NH-F X 1 ½” NH-M X 1” NPSH-M Tee
3 1” NPSH-F X 1” NPSH-M X 1” NPSH-M Tee
1 3” NH Suction Hose Strainer
1 1 ½” NH Strainer/Foot Valve
1 1 ½” NH Floating Strainer
LADDERS
1 Little Giant Ladder, 20’
HAND TOOLS
1 Pick-Head Axe, 6 LB, 36” Handle
1 Flat-Head Axe, 6 LB, 36” Handle
1 Pike Pole, 6’
1 Rubbish Hook, 6’
2 Forest Fire Shovel
1 McLeod
1 Pulaski
1 Fire Rake
1 Council Combination Tool
2 Hay Hooks
1 Pipe Wrench, 24”
1 Bolt Cutters, 24”
1 Fence Pliers
HOSE ACCESSORIES
2 Forestry Spanner Wrench, Combination
1 Dead-Blow Hammer, 2 LB
1 Hydrant Wrench
2 Spanner Wrench
1 Foam Can Wrench
1 Hose Roller
2 Wildland Hose Clamp
PORTABLE PUMP
1 Portable Pump, 119 GPM, 64 PSI
2 2” NPT-F X 1 ½” NH-M Adapter
1 Fuel Can, 2 ½ Gallon, Regular Fuel
BACKPACK PUMP
1 Backpack Pump, 5 Gallon
DRIP TORCH
1 Drip Torch
TRUCK EQUIPMENT
2 Chock Blocks
1 Triangle Warning Reflectors
1 Electronic Road Flare Kit
1 Traffic Cones, Collapsible Kit,
1 Jack, 8-Ton
1 Tow Chain, 25’ X 3/8”, 6,660 LB Working Load
CHAIN SAW
1 Chain Saw, 24” Bar, Standard Chain
1 Spark Plug, Spare
1 Air Filter, Spare
1 Bar, 24”, Spare
A-2
Docusign Envelope ID: 6327A0D8-1AD8-865B-82B1-CB6EABA7FF25 13 August 25, 2026 Item 11
State of California
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Fire and Rescue Division
10/2020
Agreement for Temporary Transfer of Vehicular Equipment-Type VI Fire Engine 1 Bar Oil, 1 Gallon
1 Chain Saw Tool Kit
FIRE EXTINGUISHERS
1 30 LB BC Fire Extinguisher
1 5 LB ABC Fire Extinguisher
EXTRICATION EQUIPMENT
1 Spreader, eDRAULIC
1 Cutter, eDRAULIC
1 Ram, eDRAULIC
Rechargeable Battery
1 Battery Charger, Multi-Bank
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
1 Trauma Kit
1 Burn Kit
ROPE
1 Utility Rope, ½” X 100’
1 Rope Bag
G.P.S.
1 Garmin
A-3
Docusign Envelope ID: 6327A0D8-1AD8-865B-82B1-CB6EABA7FF25 14 August 25, 2026 Item 11
State of California
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Fire and Rescue Division
10/2020
Agreement for Temporary Transfer of Vehicular Equipment-Type VI Fire Engine EXHIBIT “B”
RADIO INVENTORY: Type VI Fire Engine
QUAN DESCRIPTION OES NUMBER SERIAL
NUMBER
MOBILE RADIOS
1 Mobile Radio, Bendix-King, KNG M-150
PORTABLE RADIOS
1 Portable Radio, Bendix-King, KNG P-150
1 Speaker Microphone
1 Battery Holder
1 Carrying Case, Leather
B-1
Docusign Envelope ID: 6327A0D8-1AD8-865B-82B1-CB6EABA7FF25 15 August 25, 2026 Item 11
State of California
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Fire and Rescue Division
10/2020
Agreement for Temporary Transfer of Vehicular Equipment-Type VI Fire Engine EXHIBIT “C”
TEMPORARY CAL OES FIRE ENGINE TRANSFER RECORD
NO. A R T I C L E OES
DECAL
QUANTITY
1. 500 GPM Type IV Fire Engine, complete with
equipment per attached Exhibit "A" of Agreement
for Temporary Transfer of Vehicular Equipment.
OES - 1
2. License No: 1606275
3. VIN No: 1FD0W5HT1LED22966
4. Engine Number: 6621
5. Proof of Insurance:
6. Inventory Completed:
7. 8.
9. 10.
11. REASON FOR TEMPORARY TRANSFER:
SIGNATURES:
Date
PERMANENT TRANSFEREE
Date
TEMPORARY TRANSFEREE
C-1
Docusign Envelope ID: 6327A0D8-1AD8-865B-82B1-CB6EABA7FF25 16 August 25, 2026 Item 11
State of California
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Fire and Rescue Division
10/2020
Agreement for Temporary Transfer of Vehicular Equipment-Type VI Engine EXHIBIT “D”
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Part of the agreement through which the STATE makes a temporary transfer of vehicular equipment is the agreement on the part of the TRANSFEREE to furnish certain evidence of insurance. Your organization, as a transferee of equipment, will want to be mindful of these requirements and assure they are complied with.
Liability Insurance
A certificate of insurance shall be furnished to the STATE providing minimum limits of insurance as follows:
BODILY INJURY and PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY $1,000,000.00 PER OCCURANCE A certificate of insurance will have the following provisions included:
1. The State of California shall be named Loss Payee and Additional Insured.
2. The insurance company shall agree that in the event of cancellation, 15 days prior written notice will be given to the STATE.
3. The STATE shall not be responsible for premium or assessments.
4. Certificate of Insurance must include the description of the fire engine including identification number, State license number and Cal OES unit number.
Physical Damage Insurance
The transfer agreements place certain responsibilities upon your organization for the safekeeping of the vehicle and equipment. The STATE will look to your organization for reimbursement for repair or replacement cost in the event the vehicle or equipment is damaged by misuse or negligence or by other causes, except normal wear and tear, acts of God and conditions over which your organization has no control.
D-1
Docusign Envelope ID: 6327A0D8-1AD8-865B-82B1-CB6EABA7FF25 17 August 25, 2026 Item 11
State of California
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Fire and Rescue Division
10/2020
Agreement for Temporary Transfer of Vehicular Equipment-Type VI Engine Description of Fire Engine
VEHICLE VALUE
2020 FORD (HME) $215,599.00
License Number: 1606275
VIN Number: 1FD0W5HT1LED22966
Engine Number: 6621
EQUIPMENT
Hose and Appliance $41,826.00
D-2
Docusign Envelope ID: 6327A0D8-1AD8-865B-82B1-CB6EABA7FF25 18 August 25, 2026 Item 11
State of California
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Fire and Rescue Division
10/2020
Agreement for Temporary Transfer of Vehicular Equipment-Type VI Engine EXHIBIT “E”
Original text of letter addressed to the California Fire Service outlining the specifications to be considered for a Type VI fire engine assignment:
As a result of the Governor’s Blue-Ribbon Commission of the 2003 Fire Siege, the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, Fire and Rescue Division has purchased seventy-nine Type VI fire engines.
Cal OES, Fire and Rescue Division is notifying agencies that are interested in becoming a transferee of the new Type VI fire engines. These fire engines will be assigned within the Cal OES Regions. Agencies desiring to house and staff these fire engines must meet the following criteria for consideration of transfer. All these items must be addressed in your fire engine request.
Training:
· Personnel responding with the fire engine shall meet wildland fire and ICS training standards established in the California Incident Command Certification System (CICCS) or NWCG 310-1 (Current version) for the following positions; 1 Engine Boss or Company Officer
1 Apparatus Operator (Engineer)
1 Firefighter (Type 1 or 2 Firefighter)
· The department has or will adopt a 4X4 Driver Training Program Cal OES, Fire and Rescue Division Type VI TRANSFEREE will be expected to meet and accept the following work assignments & staffing:
· Backfire, Burnout, Holding, and Mop-Up
· Progressive Hose Lays, Hose Lays supplemented with portable pumps · Construct Hand lines
· Mobile Pumping
· Operate in Off-Road Environment
· Meet the expected 7-Day minimum assignment period in compliance with the California Fire Assistance Agreement.
· Meet FIRESCOPE compliant 3-person staffing
· The ability to staff 3-person staffing for out of Operational Area dispatches · The transfer agreement that transfers the fire engine requires that a fire department staff the fire engine for immediate need with 3 fully trained personnel.
· The department should assess if it has the staffing capability to send the engine out (minimum 3 fire fighters) for 7-14 days (excluding travel time) E-1
Docusign Envelope ID: 6327A0D8-1AD8-865B-82B1-CB6EABA7FF25 19 August 25, 2026 Item 11
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Kseniia Izgarskaia, Senior Management Analyst
Marco Camacho, Finance Director
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: August 25, 2026
SUBJECT: General Employee Compensation Plan Amendment – Administrative Correction REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) amending the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 General Employee Compensation Plan (Exhibit A to Attachment A) to correct the compensation for the Water Utility Specialist II position.
BACKGROUND:
On August 18, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 2025-30 amending the Water Utility Specialist II position’s compensation based on changes to the position’s job duties following a meet-and-confer process with the Del Mar City Employees Association (DMCEA). On June 16, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution 2026-42, approving the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 General Employee Compensation Plan. As part of the resolution and in accordance with DMCEA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), all general employees received a 3.0% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) effective the first pay period in which July 1, 2026, falls.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
The General Employee group compensation plan included in the June 16, 2026, Council meeting packet inadvertently omitted the prior compensation adjustment that was previously approved for the Water Utility Specialist II position in August 2025. As a result of this clerical error, the position’s previously approved compensation and 3% COLA adjustment were not correctly reflected in Resolution 2026-42 on June 16, as required by prior Council action in August 2025 and the DMCEA MOA. An administrative correction is needed to amend the General Employees compensation plan to reflect the position’s correct compensation, which will be retroactively effective to the first pay period in which July 1, 2026, falls.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with Council approval of this agenda item. The correct position compensation was included in the adopted Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Operating and Capital Budget update approved by the City Council on June 16, 2026.
NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
This is an operational item and is not related to the City Council Goals and Priorities.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Resolution Amending the General Employees Compensation Plan Exhibit A to Attachment A – General Employees Compensation Plan 1 August 25, 2026 Item 12
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL
MAR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027
COMPENSATION PLAN FOR GENERAL EMPLOYEES
WHEREAS, on August 18, 2025, the City Council of the City of Del Mar adopted Resolution 2025-30 amending the Water Utility Specialist II position’s compensation; and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2026, the City Council of the City of Del Mar adopted Resolution 2026-42, approving the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 General Employee Compensation Plan; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Del Mar City Employees Association (DMCEA) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), all general employees received a 3.0% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) effective the first pay period in which July 1, 2026, falls (June 19, 2026); and
WHEREAS, due to a clerical error, the Water Utility Specialist II position’s compensation reflected in Resolution 2026-42 was not calculated correctly and did not include the full 3.0% COLA adjustment; and
WHEREAS, an administrative correction is needed to amend the General Employees compensation plan and reflect the correct position’s compensation; and WHEREAS, the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) regulations require all City employee compensation to be reflected on a publicly available, City Council approved compensation plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has been presented with and has reviewed the compensation plan for General employees and wishes to approve the administrative correction to the Water Utility Specialist II Position, which will be retroactively effective to the first pay period in which July 1, 2026, falls (June 19, 2026).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, that:
1. The above recitals are true and correct.
2. The City Council does hereby approve and amend compensation plan for the General employee group as shown in Exhibit “A” to this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at the Regular Meeting held this 25th day of August 2026. _____________________________
Tracy Martinez, Mayor
City of Del Mar
2 August 25, 2026 Item 12
Resolution No. 2026-XX
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Christina M. Cameron, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF DEL MAR
I, Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2026-XX, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 25th day of August 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
RECUSE:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
3 August 25, 2026 Item 12
CITY OF DEL MAR
GENERAL EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION PLAN
SALARY INCREASE 3.0%
POSITION TITLE RANGE
Water Utility Specialist II* G148 - 111,186.49 91,473.40 Wastewater Utility Specialist II G145 - 89,574.43 73,693.10 Utility Specialist II G145 - 89,574.43 73,693.10
Landscape Specialist II G145 - 89,574.43 73,693.10
Facilities Specialist II G145 - 89,574.43 73,693.10
Code Enforcement Officer II G145 - 89,574.43 73,693.10
Senior Lifeguard G145 - 89,574.43 73,693.10
Network Systems Technician II G138 - 83,547.67 68,734.87 Wastewater Utility Specialist I G136 - 82,672.47 68,014.85 Water Utility Specialist I G133 - 79,492.76 65,398.89
Utility Specialist I G133 - 79,492.76 65,398.89
Landscape Specialist I G133 - 79,492.76 65,398.89
Facilities Specialist I G133 - 79,492.76 65,398.89
Code Enforcement Officer I G133 - 79,492.76 65,398.89
Accounting Technician II G130 - 77,147.33 63,469.30
Parking Enforcement Officer II G128 - 75,634.64 62,224.80 Administrative Assistant II G128 - 75,634.64 62,224.80
Beach and Community Patrol Officer II G128 - 75,634.64 62,224.80 Facilities Coordinator II G128 - 75,634.64 62,224.80
Utility Worker II G128 - 75,634.64 62,224.80
Utility Worker I G126 - 73,081.70 60,124.49
Network Systems Techinician I G123 - 71,963.73 59,204.74 Administrative Assistant I G123 - 71,963.73 59,204.74
Accounting Technician I G123 - 71,963.73 59,204.74
Facilities Coordinator I G117 - 67,793.11 55,773.56
Senior Maintenance Worker G112 53,066.63 - 64,502.83
Maintenance Worker G109 50,090.14 - 60,884.88
Parking Enforcement Officer I G107 49,496.19 - 60,162.93 Beach and Community Patrol Officer I G107 - 60,162.93 49,496.19 * Amended by Resolution 2026-xx
(1) effective the first day of the pay period including July 1, 2026 EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2026 (1)
ANNUAL SALARY
4 August 25, 2026 Item 12
CITY OF DEL MAR
GENERAL EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION PLAN
SALARY INCREASE 3.0%
POSITION TITLE Grade A B C D E
Water Utility Specialist II G148
-Hourly 43.9776 46.1765 48.4853 50.9096 53.4550
-Bi-Weekly 3,518.21 3,694.12 3,878.82 4,072.77 4,276.40 -Monthly 7,622.78 8,003.92 8,404.12 8,824.32 9,265.54
-Annual 91,473.40 96,047.07 100,849.43 105,891.90 111,186.49 Wastewater Utility Specialist II G145
Utility Specialist II
Landscape Specialist II
Facilities Specialist II
Code Enforcement Officer II
Senior Lifeguard
-Hourly 35.4294 37.2008 39.0609 41.0139 43.0646
-Bi-Weekly 2,834.35 2,976.07 3,124.87 3,281.11 3,445.17 -Monthly 6,141.09 6,448.15 6,770.55 7,109.08 7,464.54
-Annual 73,693.10 77,377.76 81,246.65 85,308.98 89,574.43 Network Systems Technician II G138
-Hourly 33.0456 34.6979 36.4328 38.2544 40.1671
-Bi-Weekly 2,643.65 2,775.83 2,914.62 3,060.35 3,213.37 -Monthly 5,727.91 6,014.30 6,315.02 6,630.77 6,962.31
-Annual 68,734.87 72,171.62 75,780.20 79,569.21 83,547.67 Wastewater Utility Specialist I G136
-Hourly 32.6994 34.3344 36.0511 37.8537 39.7464
-Bi-Weekly 2,615.96 2,746.75 2,884.09 3,028.30 3,179.71 -Monthly 5,667.90 5,951.30 6,248.86 6,561.31 6,889.37
-Annual 68,014.85 71,415.59 74,986.37 78,735.69 82,672.47 Water Utility Specialist I G133
Utility Specialist I
Landscape Specialist I
Facilities Specialist I
Code Enforcement Officer I
-Hourly 31.4418 33.0139 34.6646 36.3978 38.2177
-Bi-Weekly 2,515.34 2,641.11 2,773.16 2,911.82 3,057.41 -Monthly 5,449.91 5,722.40 6,008.52 6,308.95 6,624.40
-Annual 65,398.89 68,668.83 72,102.28 75,707.39 79,492.76 Accounting Technician II G130
-Hourly 30.5141 32.0398 33.6418 35.3239 37.0901
-Bi-Weekly 2,441.13 2,563.18 2,691.34 2,825.91 2,967.21 -Monthly 5,289.11 5,553.56 5,831.24 6,122.80 6,428.94
-Annual 63,469.30 66,642.77 69,974.91 73,473.65 77,147.33 Parking Enforcement Officer II G128
Administrative Assistant II
Beach and Community Patrol Officer II
Facilities Coordinator II
Utility Worker II
-Hourly 29.9158 31.4116 32.9821 34.6312 36.3628
-Bi-Weekly 2,393.26 2,512.92 2,638.57 2,770.50 2,909.02 -Monthly 5,185.40 5,444.67 5,716.90 6,002.75 6,302.89
-Annual 62,224.80 65,336.04 68,602.85 72,032.99 75,634.64 EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2026
5 August 25, 2026 Item 12
CITY OF DEL MAR
GENERAL EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION PLAN
Utility Worker I G126
-Hourly 28.9060 30.3513 31.8689 33.4623 35.1354
-Bi-Weekly 2,312.48 2,428.10 2,549.51 2,676.99 2,810.83 -Monthly 5,010.37 5,260.89 5,523.94 5,800.13 6,090.14
-Annual 60,124.49 63,130.72 66,287.25 69,601.62 73,081.70 Network Systems Technician I G123
Accounting Technician I
Administrative Assistant I
-Hourly 28.4638 29.8870 31.3814 32.9504 34.5979
-Bi-Weekly 2,277.11 2,390.96 2,510.51 2,636.03 2,767.84 -Monthly 4,933.73 5,180.41 5,439.44 5,711.41 5,996.98
-Annual 59,204.74 62,164.98 65,273.23 68,536.89 71,963.73 Facilities Coordinator I G117
-Hourly 26.8142 28.1549 29.5627 31.0408 32.5928
-Bi-Weekly 2,145.14 2,252.39 2,365.01 2,483.26 2,607.43 -Monthly 4,647.80 4,880.19 5,124.20 5,380.41 5,649.43
-Annual 55,773.56 58,562.24 61,490.35 64,564.87 67,793.11 Senior Maintenance Worker G112
-Hourly 25.5128 26.7884 28.1279 29.5343 31.0110
-Bi-Weekly 2,041.02 2,143.08 2,250.23 2,362.74 2,480.88 -Monthly 4,422.22 4,643.33 4,875.50 5,119.27 5,375.24
-Annual 53,066.63 55,719.97 58,505.96 61,431.26 64,502.83 Maintenance Worker G109
-Hourly 24.0818 25.2859 26.5502 27.8777 29.2716
-Bi-Weekly 1,926.54 2,022.87 2,124.01 2,230.22 2,341.73 -Monthly 4,174.18 4,382.89 4,602.03 4,832.13 5,073.74
-Annual 50,090.14 52,594.65 55,224.38 57,985.60 60,884.88 Parking Enforcement Officer I G107
Beach and Community Patrol Officer I
-Hourly 23.7962 24.9861 26.2354 27.5471 28.9245
-Bi-Weekly 1,903.70 1,998.88 2,098.83 2,203.77 2,313.96 -Monthly 4,124.68 4,330.92 4,547.46 4,774.84 5,013.58
-Annual 49,496.19 51,971.00 54,569.55 57,298.03 60,162.93 6 August 25, 2026 Item 12
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Marco Camacho, Finance Director/Treasurer
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: August 25, 2026
SUBJECT: Treasurer’s Investment Report for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2026 REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the informational Treasurer’s Investment Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2026.
BACKGROUND:
The City contracted with Optimized Investment Partners in November 2024 to help improve its investment returns while ensuring safety of principal and sufficient liquidity for operations, in compliance with the California Government Code. Ongoing portfolio management and monitoring are performed and reported on a quarterly basis in partnership with Optimized Investment Partners and the City’s Finance Director and Finance Officer.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
The total cash and investment portfolio book value (cost) held by the City as of June 30, 2026, was $41,875,471 (Attachment A), which includes the following components:
Portfolio Assets Book Value
Managed Investment Portfolio $26,864,523
State of CA Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) $13,595,105 San Diego County Investment Pool $117,690
California Asset Management Program Pooled
Investment Fund (CAMP)
$23,224
Cash/Time Deposits $1,036,494
Accrued Interest on Investments $238,434
Total $41,875,471
When reviewing the Investment Report, it is important to note that earned interest refers to interest earned on investments over a specific period, accrued interest refers to interest that has been earned but not yet received, and paid interest refers to interest that has already been received.
1 August 25, 2026 Item 13
City Council Agenda Report
Treasurer’s Investment Report for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2026 August 25, 2026
Cash and investments held by the City and the trustees are invested in accordance with the Government Code and the City’s Investment Policy. During the quarter, three Certificates of Deposit totaling $640,000 matured, three Certificates of Deposit were purchased for $743,000, ten U.S. Treasury Notes were purchased for $2,473,923, and four Corporate Notes were purchased for $1,720,143.
Two-year Treasury yields, which were approximately 3.79% at the beginning of the quarter, increased to 4.14% by the end of the quarter, representing an increase of 35 basis points during the period.
As of June 30, 2026, the weighted yield to maturity on the Managed Investment Portfolio was 3.85%, and the weighted average maturity of the portfolio was 2.36 years.
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meets approximately every six weeks to determine the federal funds rate. On June 17, 2026, under new Federal Reserve Chair Kevin M. Warsh, the FOMC voted to maintain the target range for the federal funds at
3.50% to 3.75%. The FOMC noted that economic activity has been expanding at a solid pace, job gains have kept pace with the workforce, and the unemployment rate has experienced little change in recent months. Inflation remains elevated, partially reflecting supply shocks that have driven price increases in certain sectors, including energy.
Uncertainty about the economic outlook remains elevated, owing in part to the conflict in the Middle East. The FOMC remains focused on its dual mandate of maximum employment and maintaining 2% inflation over the long run and stated that it will deliver price stability.
Based on the projected timing of cash receipts and disbursements and the structure of the City’s pooled investment portfolio, the City is expected to comfortably meet overall cash flow needs over the next six months.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact or action required by the City Council related to this agenda report.
NEXUS TO COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
This is an operational item and not included on the Council list of Goals/Priorities.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – FY25-26 Q4 Treasurer’s Investment Report:
Summary of Cash and Investments as of June 30, 2026
Portfolio Summary and Key Statistics for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2026
Managed Investments Yield to Maturity as of June 30, 2026 2 August 25, 2026 Item 13
Par Value (1) Market Value (2) Book Value (3)
Cash & Investments Held by City
Investment Portfolio
Managed Investments
U.S. Bank Custodial Cash Account $ 180,222 $ 180,222 $ 180,222 0.43% U.S. Treasury Bill/ Note 14,767,000 14,522,998 14,529,363 34.90% Medium-Term Notes/Corporate Notes 3,295,000 3,180,203 3,212,065 7.71% Federal Agency Bond 3,554,000 3,529,566 3,544,873 8.51% Certificate of Deposit 5,398,000 5,369,617 5,398,000 12.96% Managed Investments Subtotal $ 27,194,222 $ 26,782,606 $ 26,864,523 64.52% Pooled Investments
State of CA Local Agency Investment Fund $ 13,595,105 $ 13,595,105 $ 13,595,105 32.65% County Investment Pool 117,690 117,690 117,690 0.28%
CAMP 23,224 23,224 23,224 0.06%
Pooled Investments Subtotal $ 13,736,020 $ 13,736,020 $ 13,736,020 32.99% Investment Portfolio Subtotal $ 40,930,241 $ 40,518,626 $ 40,600,543 97.51% Cash/Time Deposits $ 1,036,494 $ 1,036,494 $ 1,036,494 2.49% Funds Available for Investment $ 41,966,735 $ 41,555,120 $ 41,637,037 100.00% Accrued Interest $ 238,434 $ 238,434 $ 238,434
Total Cash & Investments Held by City $ 42,205,169 $ 41,793,554 $ 41,875,471
1. Par value is the principal amount of the investment on maturity.
2. Market values contained herein are received from sources we believe are reliable; however, we do not guarantee their accuracy.
3. Book value is par value of the security plus or minus any premium or discount on the security.
City of Del Mar
Summary of Cash and Investments for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2026 Portfolio Assets % of Portfolio
Attachment A
3 August 25, 2026 Item 13
*Note: Cash/time deposits not included in WYTM and WAM
Excludes Pooled Investments and U.S. Bank Custodial Cash Account Under 1 Year
Maturity Jun 2026 Mar 2026 Change Account Years 1 - 2 Years 3-Month 3.87% 3.70% 0.17% LAIF 0.74 2 - 3 Years
1-Year 3.98% 3.68% 0.30% SD County Investment Pool 1.04 3 - 4 Years 2-Year 4.14% 3.79% 0.35% CAMP 0.23 4+ Years
3-Year 4.15% 3.81% 0.34% Total
5-Year 4.19% 3.92% 0.27%
10-Year 4.44% 4.30% 0.14%
Apr
May
Jun 2026 Jun 2025 Jun 2024 Jun 2023 Jun
4.14% 3.72% 4.71% 4.87% Total for Quarter
Note: Interest Earnings figures do not include capital gains or losses City of Del Mar
Investment Report for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2026
Investment Portfolio Summary and Key Statistics
Portfolio Key Statistics
PAR Value $ 40,930,241
Book Value (COST) $ 40,600,543
Market Value $ 40,518,626
Weighted Average Maturity (in years) 2.36
Weighted Yield to Maturity* 3.85%
Portfolio Maturity PAR Maturing % Maturing
U.S. Treasury Yields - Quarterly Comparison Avg Duration of LAIF, CAMP & SD County Inv Pool $ 5,000,000 19% $ 4,749,000 18%
$ 5,494,000 20%
$ 5,749,000 21%
$ 6,022,000 22%
$ 27,014,000 100%
Interest Earnings FY 24-25 FY 25-26 Change
$ 126,914 $ 128,035 $ 1,121
2-Year U.S. Treasury Yield - Historical Data $ 118,385 $ 129,578 $ 11,193 $ 115,959 $ 134,270 $ 18,311
$ 361,258 $ 391,883 $ 30,625
34.95%
32.72%
12.92%
8.49%
7.65%
2.49%
0.43%
0.28% 0.06%
U.S. TREASURY BILL/NOTE 34.95%
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND 32.72%
CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT 12.92%
FEDERAL AGENCY BOND/NOTE 8.49%
MEDIUM-TERM NOTE/BILL 7.65%
CASH/TIME DEPOSITS 2.49%
INVESTMENT CASH ACCOUNT 0.43%
COUNTY INVESTMENT POOL 0.28%
CAMP 0.06%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Under 1
Year
1 - 2 Years 2 - 3 Years 3 - 4 Years 4+ Years
19% 18%
20%
21% 22%
Portfolio Maturity Distribution
4 August 25, 2026 Item 13
Note: Weighted Average will change when bond is purchased, sold or matured Annualized
PAR YTM Rate of Portfolio Weighted MATURITY
Security Description CUSIP AMOUNT (Yield to Maturity) Return Weighting YTM DATE UBS Bank USA 90348JP61 $ 248,000 0.900% 0.900% 0.92% 0.008% 7/8/2026 Synchrony Bank Draper 87165FA38 $ 200,000 0.950% 0.950% 0.74% 0.007% 9/17/2026 M1 Bk MacKs Creek Mo 55316CDJ2 $ 67,000 4.050% 4.050% 0.25% 0.010% 9/24/2026 Bradesco Bk Coral Gables Bk 10421ABM8 $ 244,000 4.100% 4.100% 0.90% 0.037% 9/28/2026 Merrick Bk South Jordan Utah 59013K6K7 $ 249,000 4.050% 4.050% 0.92% 0.037% 9/28/2026 Hapo Community Credit Union 41138NAD0 $ 240,000 5.400% 5.400% 0.89% 0.048% 9/29/2026 State Bank of India New York 856285YH8 $ 248,000 1.150% 1.150% 0.92% 0.011% 10/29/2026 Austin Felco Fed Credit Union 052392EA1 $ 249,000 4.300% 4.300% 0.92% 0.040% 12/14/2026 Greenstate Cr Un Liberty 39573LCE6 $ 248,000 1.350% 1.350% 0.92% 0.012% 1/14/2027 American Express National Bank 02589ABQ4 $ 247,000 2.000% 2.000% 0.91% 0.018% 3/9/2027 Capital One Bank (USA) NA 14042TFJ1 $ 245,000 2.700% 2.700% 0.91% 0.024% 4/13/2027 Discover Bank 254673G83 $ 246,000 3.150% 3.150% 0.91% 0.029% 6/14/2027 Preferred Bank LA CA 740367QF7 $ 248,000 4.000% 4.000% 0.92% 0.037% 9/30/2027 Marine Federal Credit Union 56824JCA0 $ 249,000 4.200% 4.200% 0.92% 0.039% 6/26/2028 Liberty First Credit Union 530520AK1 $ 200,000 4.700% 4.700% 0.74% 0.035% 8/7/2028 Somerset Tr Co Pa 835104CW8 $ 249,000 4.050% 4.050% 0.92% 0.037% 11/13/2028 M&T Bank 564759UF3 $ 245,000 4.250% 4.250% 0.91% 0.039% 6/22/2029 Wells Fargo Bank 949764YE8 $ 249,000 4.250% 4.250% 0.92% 0.039% 6/26/2030 MORGAN STANLEY 61690D7G7 61690D7G7 $ 244,000 4.300% 4.300% 0.90% 0.039% 7/1/2030 MORGAN STANLEY 61776NTM5 61776NTM5 $ 244,000 4.300% 4.300% 0.90% 0.039% 7/1/2030 Security First Bk Lincoln Neb - 81425PCA7 81425PCA7 $ 245,000 3.950% 3.950% 0.91% 0.036% 7/3/2030 First Natl Bk Amer East Lansin - 32110YU37 32110YU37 $ 249,000 3.800% 3.800% 0.92% 0.035% 8/13/2030 Sallie Mae Bk Salt Lake City U - 795451EB5 795451EB5 $ 245,000 3.900% 3.900% 0.91% 0.035% 8/13/2030 $ 5,398,000.00 3.470% 3.470% 19.98% 0.691%
Annualized
PAR YTM Rate of Portfolio Weighted MATURITY
Security Description CUSIP AMOUNT (Yield to Maturity) Return Weighting YTM DATE U.S. Treasury Note 91282CHU8 $ 700,000 4.000% 4.000% 2.59% 0.104% 08/15/2026 U.S. Treasury Note 912828YQ7 $ 267,000 3.960% 3.960% 0.99% 0.039% 10/31/2026 U.S. Treasury Bill 91282CLY5 $ 250,000 4.230% 4.230% 0.93% 0.039% 11/30/2026 U.S. Treasury Note 91282CFB2 $ 1,000,000 3.920% 3.920% 3.70% 0.145% 07/31/2027 U.S. Treasury Note 91282CNP2 $ 250,000 4.060% 4.060% 0.93% 0.038% 07/31/2027 U.S. Treasury Note 91282CFH9 $ 1,000,000 3.930% 3.930% 3.70% 0.145% 08/31/2027 U.S. Treasury Note 91282CNV9 $ 250,000 4.080% 4.080% 0.93% 0.038% 08/31/2027 U.S. Treasury Note 91282CPB1 $ 250,000 4.090% 4.090% 0.93% 0.038% 09/30/2027 U.S. Treasury Note 91282CLQ2 $ 500,000 3.930% 3.930% 1.85% 0.073% 10/15/2027 U.S. Treasury Note 91282CPE5 $ 250,000 4.110% 4.110% 0.93% 0.038% 10/31/2027 U.S. Treasury Note 91282CHK0 $ 1,000,000 3.790% 3.790% 3.70% 0.140% 06/30/2028 U.S. Treasury Note 91282CHQ7 $ 1,000,000 3.790% 3.790% 3.70% 0.140% 07/31/2028 U.S. Treasury Note 91282CNU1 $ 250,000 4.140% 4.140% 0.93% 0.038% 08/15/2028 U.S. Treasury Note 91282CHX2 $ 800,000 3.790% 3.790% 2.96% 0.112% 08/31/2028 U.S. Treasury Note 91282CNY3 $ 250,000 4.140% 4.140% 0.93% 0.038% 09/15/2028 U.S. Treasury Note 91282CCY5 $ 1,000,000 3.790% 3.790% 3.70% 0.140% 09/30/2028 U.S. Treasury Note 91282CDF5 $ 250,000 3.840% 3.840% 0.93% 0.036% 10/31/2028 U.S. Treasury Note 91282CEV9 $ 1,000,000 3.810% 3.810% 3.70% 0.141% 06/30/2029 U.S. Treasury Note 91282CFC0 $ 1,000,000 3.810% 3.810% 3.70% 0.141% 07/31/2029 U.S. Treasury Note 91282CLK5 $ 1,000,000 3.810% 3.810% 3.70% 0.141% 08/31/2029 U.S. Treasury Note 91282CFL0 $ 250,000 4.140% 4.140% 0.93% 0.038% 09/30/2029 U.S. Treasury Note 91282CLN9 $ 1,000,000 3.820% 3.820% 3.70% 0.141% 09/30/2029 U.S. Treasury Note 91282CFT3 $ 500,000 3.830% 3.830% 1.85% 0.071% 10/31/2029 U.S. Treasury Note 91282CFT3 $ 250,000 4.150% 4.150% 0.93% 0.038% 10/31/2029 U.S. Treasury Note 91282CPA3 $ 250,000 4.160% 4.160% 0.93% 0.038% 09/30/2030 U.S. Treasury Note 91282CPD7 $ 250,000 4.170% 4.170% 0.93% 0.039% 10/31/2030 $ 14,767,000.00 3.973% 3.973% 54.66% 2.131%
Annualized
PAR YTM Rate of Portfolio Weighted MATURITY
Security Description CUSIP AMOUNT (Yield to Maturity) Return Weighting YTM DATE FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BKS 4.375 07/06/2026 3133EPPE9 $ 752,000 3.931% 3.931% 2.78% 0.109% 7/6/2026 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BKS 0.600 08/18/2026 3133EL4F8 $ 300,000 3.910% 3.910% 1.11% 0.043% 8/18/2026 FAMCA 31424WWM0 $ 752,000 4.000% 4.000% 2.78% 0.111% 9/13/2027 FED FARM CREDIT 3133ETKQ9 3133ETKQ9 $ 250,000 3.780% 3.780% 0.93% 0.035% 6/10/2030
CITY OF DEL MAR
CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITS (with U.S. BANK)
As of June 30, 2026
UNITED STATES TREASURY BILLS/NOTES (with U.S. BANK)
As of June 30, 2026
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (with U.S. BANK)
As of June 30, 2026
5 August 25, 2026 Item 13
Federal Agri Mtg Corp M T N - 31424WH39 31424WH39 $ 1,000,000 3.900% 3.900% 3.70% 0.144% 7/3/2030 Federal Agri Mtg Corp M T N - 31424WP89 31424WP89 $ 500,000 3.770% 3.770% 1.85% 0.070% 8/13/2030 $ 3,554,000.00 3.882% 3.882% 13.16% 0.513%
Annualized
PAR YTM Rate of Portfolio Weighted MATURITY
Security Description CUSIP AMOUNT (Yield to Maturity) Return Weighting YTM DATE Eli Lilly & Co 532457DB1 $ 250,000 4.200% 4.200% 0.93% 0.039% 10/15/2028 Meta Platforms Inc 30303M8S4 $ 250,000 4.300% 4.300% 0.93% 0.040% 8/15/2029 Apple Inc 037833DY3 $ 250,000 4.300% 4.300% 0.93% 0.040% 8/20/2030 Target Corporation - 87612EBK1 87612EBK1 $ 1,050,000 3.950% 3.950% 3.89% 0.154% 9/15/2030 Chevron USA Inc Sr Glbl Nt - 166756BJ4 4.300 10/15/2030 166756BJ4 $ 495,000 3.900% 3.900% 1.83% 0.071% 10/15/2030 NVIDIA Corp 67066GAR5 $ 1,000,000 4.500% 4.500% 3.70% 0.167% 6/15/2031 $ 3,295,000.00 4.192% 4.192% 12.20% 0.510%
Portfolio Weighted
PAR Weighting YTM
Grand Total Grand Total Grand Total
$ 27,014,000 100.00% 3.85%
6/30/2026
MEDIUM-TERM NOTES/CORPORATE NOTES (with U.S. BANK)
As of June 30, 2026
6 August 25, 2026 Item 13
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Jean Crutchfield, Associate Planner
Karen Brindley, Planning and Community Development Director Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: August 25, 2026
SUBJECT: De Novo Hearing of an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to deny Variance (V25-002), a request for a Variance from Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section 30.86.090(A)(1) to allow the retention of fencing and gates that exceed the allowed height within the lot’s required front and street-side yards (setbacks) and from DMMC Section 30.86.090(A)(4) to allow the retention of an entryway (arbor) structure in excess of the outer dimensions and openness allowed in the front yard setback Applicant/Appellant: Christian and Rosee Voigtlander
Location: 355 14th Street (APN: 300-020-18-00)
REQUESTED ACTION/ RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) to deny Variance V25-002, as the required findings for approval of the Variance request cannot be made for the requested fences/gates and entryway structure to exceed the maximum heights allowed within required yard setbacks pursuant to the DMMC Section
30.86.090(A)(1) and from DMMC Section 30.86.090(A)(4).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This is a de novo (new) hearing on application V25-002 in accordance with the City’s appeal process. A “de novo” hearing means a hearing by the reviewing body as if the action had not been previously heard and as if no decision had been rendered, except that all testimony, evidence and other material from the record of the previous consideration may be included in the record of the review. Pursuant to DMMC Section
1.12.050(A) the determination by the subordinate authority, Planning Commission (PC), is advisory only.
In accordance with DMMC Section 1.12.070, “an appeal on an application for a variance from the requirements of a zoning ordinance…shall be exempt from the Initial Consideration process in Section 1.12.040. Such actions shall be heard by the City Council as a public hearing.” Therefore, pursuant to the above-cited section, no Initial Consideration was scheduled for this appeal and the City Council is required make a determination on the application.
1 August 25, 2026 Item 14
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing/Appeal of V25-002
August 25, 2026
The City Council is asked to make a determination on the project based on the required findings to approve a Variance in Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section 30.78.030 (A-D). Should the Council agree with staff and the PC’s recommendation to deny the Variance request, Council should adopt the Resolution, included as Attachment A.
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING:
On February 10, 2026, the PC conducted a public hearing to consider the Applicant’s request for a Variance from DMMC Section 30.86.090(A)(1) and from DMMC Section
30.86.090(A)(4). During the public hearing, the PC received public testimony from staff, the Applicant, the applicant’s architect and legal counsel, and members of the public.
Following the close of the public hearing, the PC deliberated on the project’s consistency with the standards of the DMMC Section 30.78.030 (A-D) Variance Standards. During deliberations, the PC was in general agreement that the required findings could not be made to approve the Variance request. Following deliberations, the PC voted 5-0 to deny application V25-002. A resolution documenting the PC’s determination is included as Attachment B.
The staff report for the February 10, 2026, PC meeting, with additional information and analysis, is included as Attachment C. The “red dot” correspondence from the hearing is also included, which consist of the Applicant’s legal counsel’s red dot, one neighbor in support to approve the Variance, and correspondence from 15 neighbors requesting the PC deny the Variance. The meeting video for the February 10, 2026, hearing can be found here: Del Mar, CA | Planning Commission Meeting - 2/10/2026 BACKGROUND:
Site Description
The project site is located at 355 14th Street in the R1-10 Zone (Low Density Residential). The property is located at the southwest corner of 14th Street and Luneta Drive and abuts a 20-foot-wide alley to the south. The property fronts Luneta Drive and has it street side along 14th Street. The property is approximately 17,186 square feet in size and measures approximately 110-feet wide (north/south along Luneta Drive) by 158-feet deep (east/west along 14th Street). The lot exceeds the 10,000 square feet minimum lot size and required dimensions of 75-feet wide by 100-feet deep of the R1- 10 Zone. The property can be described as a “double lot” or almost as large as two contiguous lots in the vicinity.
The property is developed with a nonconforming three-story, primary dwelling unit, and an attached two-story Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Decks are located on the main and upper levels of the residence. A pool and various yard improvements are located on the lower (walk-out basement) level. A spa is located on the main level north deck. The garage is located on the lower level and is accessed via the alley. Additional onsite parking is accessed via the alley on the southeast corner of the lot; the open parking in 2 August 25, 2026 Item 14
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing/Appeal of V25-002
August 25, 2026
this front yard setback area is nonconforming since the DMMC 30.80 Parking Regulation only allows open parking to be tandem to a garage if there is no alley access. Existing perimeter fencing along Luneta Drive and 14th Street measure 5.5-feet to 8-feet high and are nonconforming with respect to the maximum fence height allowed under the DMMC, which is 3.5-feet high at the property line abutting a street. Privacy hedges have been recently planted inside and outside the perimeter fencing.
The site’s topography steps down from Luneta Drive a couple of feet onto a relatively flat building pad where the residence is located on the eastern-half of the lot and then the lot steps down approximately 10-feet on the relatively flat western-half of the lot where the pool and exterior fireplace are located. The terracing of lots in this neighborhood is typical, as the topography naturally slopes from east to west.
The subject property and neighboring properties to the east are in the R1-10 Zone (Low Density Residential). Properties to the west are zoned RM-Central (Medium Density Mixed Residential-Central). Surrounding uses are primarily single family-dwelling units one- and two-story in character with mostly open front yards, lower walls and/or vegetative screening. St. Peter’s Episcopal Church is located approximately 100-feet to the northwest on 14th Street and the Central Commercial Zone is approximately 250- feet to the west.
Development Applications, Approvals and Construction
Based on the City’s administrative record for the property submitted with previous development applications, which include information from a Historical Resources Assessment Report (Lia, April 2019) and the County Tax Assessor’s Residential Building Record, the original home (in a much smaller footprint) was constructed in approximately 1915. A history of development applications on file for the property is summarized below.
DRB-82-10, V-84-9
In 1982, a previous owner received Design Review Board approval for DRB-82-10 to perform a substantial remodel and additions to the residence. During the course of construction, it was discovered that the owner constructed an entryway (arch) within the front yard setback facing Luneta Drive. Based on the staff report and correspondence at the time, and the City’s Ordinance did not permit structures other than fences to be located within the front yard setback. The owner submitted a Variance application V-84- 9 to request retention of the arch structure within the front setback. It was noted in the staff report, the property enjoyed rights to nonconforming 6.5+ feet-high trellis/fencing along the property line. The regulations at the time (and still) only allowed a maximum of
3.5-foot-high walls/fences at that location. Planning staff recommended denial of V-84-9 stating the required findings could not be made. However, the Planning Commission approved Variance V-84-9.
3 August 25, 2026 Item 14
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing/Appeal of V25-002
August 25, 2026
The referenced arbor and perimeter fencing were removed by the current owner (Applicant/Appellant) in June 2025 and replaced with new fencing and arbor of a different design, which are the subject of this Variance V25-002 request.
DRB20-003, CDP20-002, LC20-002, and V20-002
In April 2020, the Applicant submitted applications for Design Review Permit DRB20- 003, Coastal Development Permit CDP20-002, and Land Conservation Permit LC20- 002 to demolish the residence and construct a replacement two-story residence above a FAR-exempt basement, with a new pool, grading and associated site improvements.
The project initially proposed the retention of the previously removed, nonconforming perimeter fencing. In staff’s review of the initial DRB plan submittal, staff informed the Applicant in writing that the project scope for complete site redevelopment would require the project to comply with all current development regulations, specifically the abatement of nonconforming fencing. In response to staff’s comment, the Applicant submitted Variance V20-002 to request retention of the nonconforming height perimeter fencing. However, the Applicant never proceeded with the Variance request and revised the DRB project to include removal of the nonconforming fences and proposed new fences with heights to comply with the DMMC.
The Design Review Board reviewed the project at their August 26, 2020 DRB meeting, deliberated on the project and continued the project based on inconsistencies with the Design Review Ordinance. The applicant decided not to proceed with the project and withdrew DRB20-003, CDP20-002 and LC20-002 applications in February 2022.
ADR22-012, ADR23-003, ADU23-008
Subsequently, the Applicant submitted applications to remodel the property and received approvals for the following Administrative Design Review (ADR) Permit and Accessory Dwelling Unit:
• ADR22-012 approved in September 2022 for the primary residence remodel to perform minor exterior modifications to walls, decks, roof, windows and doors • ADR23-003 approved in March 2023 for site improvements to include construction of a new pool and mechanical equipment, spa, and exterior fireplace • ADU23-008 approved in September 2023 for a new attached Accessory Dwelling Unit located on the north side of the residence
The primary residence, ADU, and yard structures for the above referenced applications comply with all yard setback and lot coverage requirements of the R1-10 Zone.
However, the primary residence is nonconforming in that it exceeds the maximum allowed 25% Floor Area Ratio, exceeds the two-story limit, and exceeds the maximum building height of 26-feet. The northeastern portion of the raised deck on which the spa is currently located is nonconforming in that these types of structures are not allowed within the 10-foot street side yard setback. Pursuant to DMMC 30.76 Nonconformities, the Applicant was allowed to retain and/or remodel these nonconformities associated 4 August 25, 2026 Item 14
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing/Appeal of V25-002
August 25, 2026
with a “minor remodeling project” that did not involve a construction improvement valuation exceeding 50% of the valuation of the existing structure based on the City’s Building Valuation Worksheet.
During the initial application review process for ADR23-003 for site improvements, the Applicant and their representative were informed in writing of the nonconforming status of the perimeter fence height and north deck, which referenced on the plans as “to remain, and/or replace in kind.” Staff advised that pursuant to DMMC 30.76 Nonconformities, structural nonconformities may be retained or repaired (nonstructural components at no more than 50% of the existing) for minor remodeling projects. Staff further advised, however, that if nonconforming structures were removed, pursuant to DMMC 30.76, reconstruction is prohibited, unless they receive approval of a Variance from the Planning Commission. In the Applicant’s subsequent plan submittal, the Applicant’s representative acknowledged staff’s comment and responded that the notes “and/or replaced in kind” were removed from plans.
Also, during the application review of ADR22-012 for the residence remodel, the perimeter fences were noted on plans “existing to remain.” Staff advised the Applicant and their representative of the prohibition to rebuild or modify nonconformities and that any reconstruction would require code compliance in DMMC 30.86.020 Fence Heights.
The Applicant’s approvals for the ADRs and ADU project did not include modifications to the nonconforming (previously removed) perimeter fencing, gates, and entry arbor which were nonconforming relative to the maximum dimensions permitted in DMMC
30.86.090.
The Applicant received Building Permits for the approved ADRs and ADU project. The Applicant completed the project and received final inspections from the City in December 2025. It appears the Applicant installed a pool cover and fencing immediately surrounding the new pool, see Attachment D, Google Streetview dated February 2025.
The Applicant’s Building Permit for the pool also includes house door exit alarms and pool water alarms as drowning prevention measures.
Code Case
On June 16, 2025, the City received several complaints alleging that the Applicant had completely reconstructed fencing along Luneta Drive and 14th Street property boundaries that appeared to exceed the DMMC maximum height allowed in street yard setbacks.
On July 10, 2025, in response to the code case, the Applicant submitted application Variance V25-002. Information initially submitted with the Variance application only included photos of the fences for the property before they were removed, along with what appear to be details of manufacturing specifications and measurements (shop drawings) for Mulholland Brand fencing, dated March 19 (no year referenced). Staff’s review of the 5 August 25, 2026 Item 14
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing/Appeal of V25-002
August 25, 2026
application submittal requested that the Applicant submit detailed information to be provided on a Site Plan, fence elevations and cross sections to allow staff to review and analyze the application for the Variance request. The Applicant submitted the requested items, and these plans are included for the Council’s review.
Variance V25-002 Request
The Applicant is requesting relief from Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) 30.86.090 - Fences/Retaining Walls. (A.)(1.) to exceed the fence/wall height allowance within required front and street-side yard setbacks where a maximum height of 3.5 feet is allowed along Luneta Drive at the east (front yard) property line and 14th Street at the north (street-side yard) property line, and 3.5 – 6 feet is allowed interior of the front property line. The Applicant’s request also seeks to exceed the maximum allowed entryway structure dimensions of DMMC 30.86.090 - Fences/Retaining Walls. (A.)(4.). Plans depicting the Applicant’s reconstructed fencing/gates and entryway structure, requested to be retained, are included as Attachment E. The Applicant’s site photos of the constructed fences are shown in Attachment F. The Applicant planted privacy hedges on the inside (and additional shrubs outside within public right-of-way) of the subject fencing along Luneta Drive and 14th Street, see Attachment G, staff photos dated February and June, 2026.
The specific dimensions of the Applicant’s Variance request are summarized below:
• Fencing along Luneta Drive:
5.5-feet to 7-feet-high, for a total linear span of 105 feet • Fencing along 14th Street:
6.7-feet to 8-feet-high, for a total linear span of 123 feet • Fencing north of the parking area at the Southeast corner of the lot:
5.5-feet to 7.5-feet-high, for a total linear span of 20 feet • Entryway structure along Luneta Drive:
5’-10” deep, 11’-8” wide, 7’ high
Walls and fencing along the western property line (rear yard) and the alley are nonconforming and some places over-height, but they were not reconstructed by the Applicant and are not part of the Variance request. Those walls and fencing may remain nonconforming until such time that they are removed or need to be reconstructed beyond regular, non-structural maintenance and repair.
The table below summarizes the permitted fence/wall height limits in a residential zone pursuant to DMMC 30.86.090 - Fences/Retaining Walls. (A.)(1). The Applicant’s request is included for comparison.
Fence/Wall Height when a Required
Yard (Setback) is abutting a Street
Fence/Wall
Height
Fence/Wall Height
Variance Request
Located at the property line (PL) 3.5’ max. height *Front: 5.5’ to 7’ **Street Side: 6.7’ to 8’
6 August 25, 2026 Item 14
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing/Appeal of V25-002
August 25, 2026
Setback 2-feet from the PL 4.0’ max. height ***Parking Area: 5.5’-6.3’ Setback 4-feet from the PL 4.5’ max. height ***Parking Area: 7’-7.5’ Setback 6-feet from the PL 5.0’ max. height ***Parking Area: 7’-7.5’ Setback 8-feet from the PL 5.5’ max. height ***Parking Area: 7’-7.5’ Setback 10-feet from the PL 6.0’ max. height ***Parking Area: 7’-7.5’ * Front Yard Setback is located along Luneta Drive
** Street Side Yard Setback is located along 14th Street *** Parking Area is located at the southeast corner of the property The table below summarizes the permitted entryway structure permitted in a front yard setback of a residential zone pursuant to DMMC 30.86.090 - Fences/Retaining Walls. (A.)(4). The Applicant’s request is included for comparison.
Entryway Structure
DMMC
30.86.090
Maximum
Variance Request
Maximum Width (measured parallel to the street) 8-feet wide 11-feet, 8-inches Maximum Depth (measured perpendicular to the
street)
5-feet deep 5-feet, 10-inches
Maximum Height 10-feet high 7-feet*
Minimum Openness from above and on vertical
planes of all sides
50% minimum Less than 50%
* Complies with the DMMC; no Variance required.
Design Review Considerations
If the Variance is granted, the Applicant would still be required to obtain the appropriate Design Review approvals for the proposed improvements. Pursuant to DMMC 23.08 the Design Review Ordinance, fence and walls exceeding 6-feet-high and entryway structures exceeding the maximum allowances would not qualify for Administrative Design Review and would instead be reviewed by the Design Review Board at a noticed public hearing.
The project would be reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB) for compliance with the City’s Design Review Ordinance (DMMC 23.08).
DISCUSSION/ ANALYSIS
Pursuant to DMMC Chapter 1.12 (Appeals), 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.
7 August 25, 2026 Item 14
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing/Appeal of V25-002
August 25, 2026
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.
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision
As previously mentioned, the Planning Commission reviewed V25-002 at their February 10, 2026, meeting. The Commission conducted a public hearing on the application, deliberated, and determined they could not make all the required findings in DMMC
30.78.030 (A-D) to approve the Variance request. Therefore, the PC unanimously denied the application.
On February 25, 2026, legal counsel for the Applicant/Appellant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny V25-002 (Attachment H). Staff has summarized the Appellant’s letter below on the grounds for appeal, followed with staff’s response.
Additional public correspondence was received for the De Novo hearing supporting the Planning Commission’s denial of the Variance, Attachment I.
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.
Appellant:
The Appellant asserts that in denying the variance application, the Planning Commission relied on erroneous statement[s] in the staff report and the proposed Resolution that there were no unique circumstances that would justify the granting of a variance. The Appellant provides several points to this assertion, which are:
• The Appellant contends that the property lacks privacy based on its location as a corner lot with two street frontages and located in a busy neighborhood in proximity to Del Mar Plaza and L’Auberge.
• The Appellant contends that based on the existing development on the lot there is not sufficient space to locate a 5-foot-high fencing for the pool and spa.
Alternative development plans would create a bizarre aesthetic and interfere with the enjoyment of their property.
8 August 25, 2026 Item 14
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing/Appeal of V25-002
August 25, 2026
• The Appellant contends the need for the variance was not self-induced. They did not contemplate a full replacement of the fence but were compelled to act when an automobile crashed onto their property (per Appellant’s photo in appeal letter, the photo of the fence after the accident is dated April 10, no year given). • The Appellant contends that staff informed them they may repair and replace nonconforming structures in-kind with a remodel and minor addition. • The Appellant contends the nonconforming fences existed for decades without complaints of visual impacts or safety.
• The Appellant contends the Variance V84-9 granted in 1984 has not expired.
They reconstructed it but with some modifications.
Staff Response:
The Planning Commission at their February 10, 2026, meeting thoroughly reviewed and deliberated on the project and required findings in DMMC 30.78.030. The PC determined: there were no unusual circumstances applicable for the property compared to other properties for the R1-10 Zone; there are alternative development plans available on the Applicant’s property that is substantially larger than the R1-10 zone standard lot to locate a conforming fence; that the recently planted hedges would provide privacy for the residence and yards; that the pool cover and pool fencing immediately surrounding the pool would satisfy the California Building Code and DMMC pool enclosure/effective barrier requirement; the need for the Variance is self-induced when the Appellant removed all the perimeter fencing and entry arbor; that granting a variance for fence heights up to 8-feet-high along the property line abutting the street would far exceed what the fence heights would be in the vicinity and would grant the Applicant special privileges not enjoyed by other property owners; and denying the Variance would not deny the Applicants of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone and vicinity.
As previously mentioned in the Background of this report, it is demonstrated in the City’s administrative record that the Appellants were informed by staff in writing during separate project reviews of applications DRB20-003, V20-002, ADR22-012, and ADR23-003 that pursuant to DMMC 30.76Nonconformiteis, the nonconforming fences on their property may not be reconstructed, and once removed, the new fencing would need to comply with the current zoning requirement in DMMC 30.86.020 Supplemental Regulations-Fence Heights.
The Appellant demolished the entry arbor and reconstructed a new entry arbor with a different design and dimension than what was approved in Variance V-84-9 for the entry arch. Therefore, the rights afforded per V-84-9 were relinquished and the new design would have to comply with the current regulation in DMMC 30.86.020 (A)(4) for entryways and DMMC 23.08 Design Review Ordinance.
9 August 25, 2026 Item 14
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing/Appeal of V25-002
August 25, 2026
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.
The Appellant states this section is not applicable to their appeal.
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.
Appellant states the reasons are the same as explained in section 1. Factual Error.
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.
Appellant:
The Appellant asserts that the Planning Commission’s determination to deny the Variance was based on a miscomprehension and conflicts with Municipal Code Section
30.86.170 - Swimming Pools to require any outside body of water having a depth of over 12-inches to maintain a 5-foot-high protective fence, wall, enclosure or other effective barrier, as required by the California Building Code around said pool or outside body of water.
• The Appellant contends that at the PC meeting, the Planning Director misstated the standard of the pool safety requirement and stated that the requirement may be satisfied seven different ways including the installation of a pool cover. • The Appellant contends that other properties have been cited for not having 5- foot-high pool fencing and referenced a property at 785 Kalamath, where they were granted a Variance to exceed maximum allowable fence heights to comply with pool safety requirements.
Staff Response:
The Planning Director correctly stated the pool safety requirement at the PC meeting.
As confirmed by the Building Official and consistent with past practice, a pool cover would satisfy the requirement for “an enclosure or other effective barrier” as required in DMMC 30.86.170 - Swimming Pools and under the California Building Code as one of the seven acceptable methods for drowning prevention measures for a pool or any outside body of water over 12-inches in depth. At the time of final inspection, the Appellant satisfactorily demonstrated to the Building Inspector that at least two out of the seven acceptable drowning prevention measures were installed and received final inspection of the project. The Google Streetview photograph dated February 2025 (Attachment D), shows the subject pool with fencing immediately surrounding the pool 10 August 25, 2026 Item 14
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing/Appeal of V25-002
August 25, 2026
and a pool cover. The Appellant’s approved Building Permit pool plan also specifies other drowning prevention measures to be implemented to include door exit alarms and water-motion detectors pool alarms. Therefore, with a pool cover, the 5-foot protective fence would not be required for the property.
The property located at 785 Kalamath Drive received approval for a Variance V22-001 from the PC on November 8, 2022, to allow 5-foot-high fencing along the front and street side yards, where only 3.5-feet high would be allowed. The variance approval was specifically for three different segments of new fencing to connect to existing fencing to satisfy the pool enclosure requirement. According to the PC staff report, the original residence and amoeba-shaped pool (located in the front yard setback) were both permitted and constructed in 1929 which predates the City’s zoning and Building Code for pool enclosure requirements. Additions to the residence were permitted in 1978. An 8-foot-tall hedge along Kalamath Drive has historically provided a barrier from access onto the property. However, a portion of the hedge was damaged beyond reclamation by construction vehicles and created an opening and access onto the property and pool. Due to the unusual location of existing improvements on the lot in existence since 1929 with the pool located in the front yard setback and limited yard area remaining, alternative plans available that would avoid the variance would have deprived the owner of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the area. The Planning Commission was able to make all findings required in DMMC 30.78.030, and therefore, approved V22-001. Subsequently, the property owner also obtained an Administrative Design Review permit ADR23-011 and building permit required for the installation of the subject fence.
Variance Findings
Del Mar Municipal Code Section 30.78.030 - Standards. (A - D) stipulates that a Variance application must comply with all the following standards (findings). The required standards/findings are cited below and are followed by staff’s proposed findings for the Variance. Based on the analysis provided in the proposed findings below, staff is not recommending approval of the Variance.
A. A Variance from the terms of the Zoning Ordinance shall be granted only when, because of the special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
Proposed Finding:
The Variance should not be granted because the lot is not constrained by special circumstances in terms of its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. The property is in the R1-10 Zone and is a rectangular corner lot located at the southwest corner of Luneta Drive and 14th Street. The property is approximately 17,186 square-feet in size and is approximately 110-feet wide by 158-feet deep, which exceeds the R1-10 11 August 25, 2026 Item 14
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing/Appeal of V25-002
August 25, 2026
Zone minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, minimum lot width of 75-feet, and minimum lot depth of 100-feet. The property also abuts an alley, which pursuant to DMMC Section
30.86.200(D), allows half the width of the alley to measure the required side yard setback, which in this case results in a “zero- setback” along the alley.
The topography of 14th Street slopes naturally to the west, as do all properties along 14th Street. The topography of the lot steps down from Luneta drive and the building pad on the eastern-half and western-half are relatively flat, but the two halves are separated by approximately 10-feet of elevation difference. The property is developed with a recently remodeled nonconforming 3-story primary residence and an attached two-story Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) with recent yard improvements consisting of a pool, spa, fireplace and pool equipment. The existing improvements comply with all required yard setback requirements of the R1-10 Zone which requires a minimum setback of 20-foot front yard (Luneta Drive side), 10-feet street side yard (14th Street side), 25-feet rear yard (east side), and 0-lot line setback for the interior side yard abutting the 20-foot-wide alley.
The Applicant has recently planted a row of hedges on the inside of the property abutting the wall facing 14th Street and Luneta Drive, which in time will grow denser and higher, and can provide privacy to the residence/ADU, pool and yards facing 14th Street and Luneta Drive. Additionally, the size of the lot allows alternative opportunities to provide pool safety fencing outside of the required yards (setbacks), such as the five-foot-tall safety barrier (fence) that was installed around the pool after its construction demonstrating compliance with California Building Code pool safety requirements.
Therefore, the Variance should not be granted to exceed the maximum fence heights permitted in DMMC 30.86.090(A), because the property does not have unusual or special circumstances related to lot size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. The property would not be deprived of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under the R1-10, most of which have open yards incorporating landscaping, lower walls, or higher walls set further back from streets, and entryway structures that comply with the DMMC size limitations.
B. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated.
Proposed Finding:
The Variance to allow fences/gates up to 8-feet-high and an entryway structure larger than current DMMC allows would grant special privileges due to the property’s shape, topography, and location being similar to other properties in the R1-10 zone. Other properties in the vicinity in the R1-10 zone have open yards incorporating landscaping, lower walls, or higher walls set further back from streets, and entryway structures that comply with the DMMC size limitations.
12 August 25, 2026 Item 14
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing/Appeal of V25-002
August 25, 2026
C. A variance will not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulation governing the parcel of property. The provisions of this section shall not apply to conditional use permits.
Proposed Finding:
The proposed wall/fences/gates and entryway structure is a permitted associated use for an existing primary residence which is an allowed use in the R1-10 Zone.
D. No variance shall be granted if the inability to enjoy the privilege enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification:
1. Could be avoided by an alternate development plan;
Proposed Finding:
The project request could be avoided by an alternate development plan in that, pursuant to DMMC 30.86.090(A)(1), the Applicant would be able to locate an alternate 5-foot-high wall/fence that is setback 6-feet from the property lines fronting Luneta Drive and 14th Street to comply with the 5-foot-high pool enclosure Building Code requirements. Another alternative is to install the required pool safety fencing around the pool itself, not the perimeter of the property.
The Applicant can reduce the entryway arbor structure to comply with DMMC
30.86.090(A)(4) which allows one entryway structure within a street frontage setback if it does not exceed 10-feet high, 5-feet deep and 8-feet wide and meet the 50% openness on all vertical planes and overhead covering. The Applicant has also recently planted a row of privacy hedge on the inside of the property abutting the wall facing 14th Street and Luneta Drive, which in time will grow denser and higher and provide privacy to the residence/ADU, pool and yards facing 14th Street and Luneta Drive.
2. Is self-induced as a result of an action taken by the property owner or the owner's predecessor;
Proposed Finding:
In this case, the need for a Variance is self-induced, as the Applicant demolished and reconstructed significantly nonconforming perimeter site fencing when the provisions of DMMC Section 30.86.090 allow for the ability to construct privacy and pool security fencing with a modified design and locations. Like other properties in the vicinity subject to identical zoning, the Applicant could have placed walls/fencing further inside of the lot’s property western, northern, and eastern property lines to achieve greater height for privacy and security.
13 August 25, 2026 Item 14
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing/Appeal of V25-002
August 25, 2026
3. Would allow such a degree of variation as to constitute a rezoning or other amendment to the zoning code; or
Proposed Finding:
The installed fencing along the north and east boundaries of the property was constructed to heights that far exceed the maximum standards of the DMMC and what would be allowed in any required yard (setback) within the City.
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any private or public nuisance.
Proposed Finding:
The request would not result in the authorization or legalization of a private or public nuisance since walls and fences are allowed uses in the R1-10 zone.
CONCLUSION
It is staff’s recommendation that the concerns cited within the appeal were thoroughly reviewed, analyzed, and considered by the PC. In rendering its determination, the Commission considered standards enumerated in the Del Mar Municipal Code, staff’s report with detailed analysis, site visits to the Applicant/Appellant’s property, submitted materials, and testimony (written and oral) from the Applicant/Appellant and their representatives, staff, and members of the public.
Should the Council agree with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and find that all the required findings in the DMMC 30.78.030 cannot be made in order to approve the Variance, a resolution is included for the Council’s adoption to deny V25- 002, and is included as Attachment A.
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.
HOUSING IMPACT:
The project does not include the demolition, alteration, or development of any housing units. Therefore, the approval of the requested discretionary development application would not have any adverse impact on the City of Del Mar’s housing supply or housing affordability.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
In accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission’s action to reject or disapprove a project is statutorily exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15270(a). 14 August 25, 2026 Item 14
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing/Appeal of V25-002
August 25, 2026
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Draft City Council Resolution
Attachment B – Planning Commission Resolution
Attachment C – Planning Commission staff report and red dots, 2-10-26 PC meeting Attachment D – Google Streetview, dated March 2025
Attachment E – Appellant’s Plan
Attachment F – Appellant’s Photos
Attachment G – Staff Photos, dated February and June 2026 Attachment H – Appeal Letter with attachments
Attachment I – Correspondence
15 August 25, 2026 Item 14
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL
MAR, CALIFORNIA, DENYING VARIANCE V25-002 FROM DEL
MAR MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 30.86.090(A)(1), A REQUEST
TO ALLOW THE RETENTION OF FENCING AND GATES UP TO
7-FEET IN HEIGHT AT THE FRONT AND UP TO 8-FEET IN
HEIGHT IN THE STREET SIDE PROPERTY LINES WHERE A
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 3.5-FEET IS ALLOWED, AND FROM
DMMC SECTION 30.86.090(A)(2) AND DMMC SECTION
30.86.090(A)(4) TO ALLOW THE RETENTION OF AN ENTRYWAY
(ARBOR) STRUCTURE IN EXCESS OF THE DIMENSIONS
ALLOWED IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF A PROPERTY IN
THE R1-10 ZONE, LOCATED AT 355 14TH STREET (APN: 300-
020-18-00), DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, Christian and Rosee Voigtlander, (Applicant) are the owners of real property located in the R1-10 Zone at 355 14th Street, Assessor’s Parcel Number 300-020- 18-00 (Property), Del Mar, California; and
WHEREAS, Variance V-84-9 was approved in 1984 and allowed an entry trellis/arch in the property’s front yard setback where the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) at the time did not permit such structures in the front yard setback; and WHEREAS, the Applicant demolished said entry trellis/arch and replaced with a new arbor of a different design, thereby relinquishing rights per Variance V-84-9; and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2025, the City received complaints which claimed that the Applicant had reconstructed (nonconforming) walls and fences along Luneta Drive and 14th Street property boundaries that appeared to exceed the height standards setout in the DMMC; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to DMMC 30.76-Nonconformities, a nonconforming structure inconsistent with the DMMC development standard(s) once removed and abated, may not be reconstructed in-kind, except through approval of a variance pursuant to DMMC 30.78 - Variance; and
WHEREAS, on July 10, 2025, the Applicant applied for a Variance (V25-002) (Application) from Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section 30.86.090(A)(1) to allow the retention of fencing and gates that reach 7-feet in height at the front property lines and then up to 8-feet in height on the street side property lines; this is inconsistent with the code requirements where only a maximum height of 3.5-feet is allowed at the property line abutting a street and up to a maximum of 6-feet within the setback abutting a street; and where DMMC Section 30.86.090(A)(2) only allows; fencing and gates are restricted to a maximum of 6-feet; and
ATTACHMENT A
16 August 25, 2026 Item 14
Resolution 2026-XX
WHEREAS, in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council’s action to reject or disapprove a project is statutorily exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15270(a); and WHEREAS, on February 10, 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Del Mar held a duly noticed public hearing on the Variance application (V25-002) at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include without limitation:
a. Drawings developed by the Applicant;
b. Written information submitted with the application;
c. Agenda Report, dated February 10, 2026, incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein; and
d. Additional information submitted and testimony provided during the hearing.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at their February 10, 2026 meeting discussed and considered the following on Variance application V25-002:
1. There are no unusual circumstances for the property relative to its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings and that the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification;
2. There are alternative development plans available for the property that are substantially larger than the R1-10 zone standard lot to locate a conforming fence;
3. The need for the Variance is self-induced when the Applicant removed the nonconforming perimeter fences and entry arbor and reconstructed it without City authorization;
4. The granting of a variance for fence heights up to 8-feet-high along the property line abutting the street would exceed the fence heights established by the DMMC;
5. Granting a variance under these circumstances would grant the Applicant special privileges not enjoyed by other property owners; and
6. That denying the Variance would not deny the Applicants of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity in the R1-10 Zone.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at their February 10, 2026, meeting determined they could not make the required findings as defined in DMMC 30.78.030 (A-D) and accordingly voted to deny (5-0) Variance application V25-002; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2026, the Applicant’s legal counsel filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of V25-002 and requested it to be heard at a De Novo public hearing; and
17 August 25, 2026 Item 14
Resolution 2026-XX
WHEREAS, on August 25, 2026, the City Council of the City of Del Mar held a duly noticed public hearing to review the referenced entitlement, and at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, oral and written evidence was submitted and considered to include without limitation:
a. Drawings developed by the Applicant;
b. Written information submitted with the application;
c. Agenda Report, dated August 25, 2026, incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein; and
d. Additional information submitted and testimony provided during the hearing.
WHEREAS, at the August 25, 2026, meeting, the City Council discussed and considered the application request for Variance V25-002; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar that with regard to Variance application V25-002, the City Council makes the following findings:
A. A Variance from the terms of the Zoning Ordinance shall be granted only when, because of the special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
The Variance should not be granted because the lot is not constrained by its size, shape, topography, or the location or surroundings. The property is located in the R1- 10 Zone and is a rectangular corner lot located at the southwest corner of Luneta Drive and 14th Street. The property is approximately 17,186 square-feet in size and is approximately 110-feet wide by 158-feet deep, which exceeds the R1-10 Zone minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, minimum lot width of 75-feet, and minimum lot depth of 100-feet. The property also abuts an alley, which pursuant to DMMC Section 30.86.200(D), allows half the width of the alley to measure the required side yard setback, which in this case results in a “zero- setback” along the alley. In sum, the Applicant has the ability to construct conforming structures.
The topography of 14th Street slopes naturally to the west, as do all properties along 14th Street. The topography of the lot steps down from Luneta drive and the building pad on the eastern-half and western-half are relatively flat, but the two halves are separated by approximately 10-feet of elevation difference. The property is developed with a recently remodeled nonconforming 3-story primary residence and an attached two-story Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) with recent yard improvements consisting of a pool, spa, fireplace and pool equipment. The existing improvements 18 August 25, 2026 Item 14
Resolution 2026-XX
comply with all required yard setback requirements of the R1-10 Zone which requires a minimum setback of 20-foot front yard (Luneta Drive side), 10-feet street side yard (14th Street side), 25-feet rear yard (east side), and 0-lot line setback for the interior side yard abutting the 20-foot-wide alley.
Therefore, the Variance should not be granted because the Applicant has the ability to met the requirements of the Code.
B. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated.
The Variance to allow fences/gates up to 8-feet-high and an entryway structure larger than current DMMC allows would grant special privileges due to the property’s shape, topography, and location being similar to other properties in the R1-10 zone. Other properties in the vicinity in the R1-10 zone have open yards incorporating landscaping, lower walls, or higher walls set further back from streets, and entryway structures that comply with the DMMC size limitations.
C. A variance will not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulation governing the parcel of property. The provisions of this section shall not apply to conditional use permits.
The proposed wall/fences/gates and entryway structure is a permitted associated use for an existing primary residence which is an allowed use in the R1-10 Zone if it meets the height and setback requirements of the code.
D. No variance shall be granted if the inability to enjoy the privilege enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification:
1. Could be avoided by an alternate development plan;
The project request could be avoided by alternate development plans. Here, the Applicant could conform the walls to Code’s heights and setback requirements by. locating an alternate 5-foot-high wall/fence that is setback 6- feet from the property lines fronting Luneta Drive and 14th Street to comply with the 5-foot-high pool enclosure Building Code requirements. Another alternative is to install the required pool safety fencing around the pool itself, not the perimeter of the property.
The applicant can reduce the entryway arbor structure to comply with DMMC
30.86.090(A)(4) which allows one entryway structure within a street frontage 19 August 25, 2026 Item 14
Resolution 2026-XX
setback if it does not exceed 10-feet high, 5-feet deep and 8-feet wide and meet the 50% openness on all vertical planes and overhead covering.
2. Is self-induced as a result of an action taken by the property owner or the owner's predecessor;
In this case, the need for a Variance is self-induced, as the Applicant demolished and reconstructed significantly non-conforming perimeter site fencing when the provisions of DMMC Section 30.86.090 allow for the ability to construct privacy and pool security fencing with a modified design and locations. Like other properties in the vicinity subject to identical zoning, the Applicant could have placed walls/fencing further inside of the lot’s property western, northern, and eastern property lines to achieve greater height for privacy and security.
3. Would allow such a degree of variation as to constitute a rezoning or other amendment to the zoning code; or
The installed fencing along the north and east boundaries of the property was constructed to heights that exceed the maximum standards required by the Code.
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any private or public nuisance.
The request would not result in the authorization or legalization of a private or public nuisance since walls and fences are allowed uses in the R1-10 zone.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, State of California, at a Regular Meeting held on the 25th day of August, 2026. ____________________________
Tracy Martinez, Mayor
City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
20 August 25, 2026 Item 14
Resolution 2026-XX
Christina M. Cameron, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF DEL MAR
I, Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2026-XX, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 25th day of August 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
RECUSE:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
21 August 25, 2026 Item 14
ATTACHMENT B
22 August 25, 2026 Item 14
23 August 25, 2026 Item 14
24 August 25, 2026 Item 14
25 August 25, 2026 Item 14
26 August 25, 2026 Item 14
City of Del Mar
Staff Report
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
February 10, 2026
APPLICATION: V25-002
REQUEST: A request for a Variance from: Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section
30.86.090(A)(1) to allow the retention of fencing and gates that exceed the allowed height in within the lot’s required front and street-side yards (setbacks) and from DMMC Section 30.86.090(A)(4) to allow the retention of an entryway (arbor) structure in excess of the outer dimensions and openness allowed in the front yard setback.
APPLICANT/OWNER: Christian and Rosee Voigtlander
AGENT: Jim Sneed, Bokal and Sneed Architects
SITE LOCATION: 355 14th Street
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 300-020-18-00
COMMUNITY PLAN: Low Density Residential
ZONE: R1-10 (Low Density Residential)
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: In accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission’s action to reject or disapprove a project is statutorily exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15270(a).
HOUSING IMPACT: The project does not include the demolition, alteration, or development of any housing units. Therefore, the approval of the requested discretionary development application would not have any adverse impact on the City of Del Mar’s housing supply or housing affordability.
BACKGROUND:
The project site is located at 355 14th Street in the R1-10 Zone (see Exhibit A). The property is located at the southwest corner of 14th Street and Luneta Drive and abuts a 20-foot-wide alley to the south.
The property, which fronts Luneta Drive, is approximately 17,186 square feet in size and measures approximately 110-feet (north/south along Luneta Drive) by 158-feet (east/west along 14th Street).
The lot exceeds the 10,000 square feet minimum lot size and required dimensions of 75-feet wide by 100-feet deep of the R1-10 Zone. The property is developed with a nonconforming three-story, primary dwelling unit, and an attached two-story Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Decks are located
ATTACHMENT C
27 August 25, 2026 Item 14
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT: V25-002
February 10, 2026
on the main and upper levels of the residence. A pool and various yard improvements are located on the lower (walk-out basement) level. A spa is located on the main level north deck. The garage is located on the lower level and is accessed via the alley. Additional onsite parking is accessed via the alley on the southeast corner of the lot; the open parking in this front yard setback area is nonconforming since the DMMC 30.80 Parking Regulation only allows open parking to be tandem to a garage if there is no alley access.
The site’s topography site steps down from Luneta Drive a couple of feet onto a relatively flat building pad where the residence is located on the eastern-half of the lot and then the lot steps down approximately 10-feet on the western-half of the lot where the pool and exterior fireplace are located.
Properties to the west are RM-Central (Medium Density Mixed Residential-Central) and properties to the east are R1-10 Zone. Surrounding uses are primarily single family-dwelling units one- and twostory in character with mostly open front yards, lower walls or vegetative screening. St. Peter’s Episcopal Church is located approximately 100-feet to the northwest on 14th Street and the Central Commercial Zone is approximately 250-feet to the west.
Recent Development Approvals and Construction:
The Applicant completed a comprehensive remodel of the property in December 2024 which received approvals for Administrative Design Review (ADR) Permit ADR22-012 for the primary residence remodel, ADR23-003 for construction of a new pool and mechanical equipment, spa and exterior fireplace, and ADU23-008 for a new attached Accessory Dwelling Unit located on the north side of the residence. The primary residence, ADU, and yard structures comply with all yard setback and lot coverage requirements of the R1-10 Zone. However, the primary residence is nonconforming in that it exceeds the maximum allowed 25% Floor Area Ratio and exceeds the two-story limit and building height of 26-feet. The northeastern portion of the raised deck on which the spa is currently located is nonconforming in that these types of structures are not allowed within a street side yard setback. The Applicant’s plans for the ADRs and ADU project did not include modifications to the existing nonconforming (previously removed) perimeter fencing, gates, and entry arbor which were nonconforming relative to the maximum dimensions permitted in DMMC 30.86.090.
On June 16, 2025, the City received several registered complaints that the Applicant had completely reconstructed fencing along Luneta Drive and 14th Street property boundaries that appeared to exceed the Municipal Code maximum height allowed in street yard setbacks. Pursuant to DMMC 30.76 (Nonconformities), a nonconforming structure once abated and removed may not be reconstructed in-kind except through approval of a Variance to allow a waiver from the current requirement(s).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Applicant filed an application for a Variance of the existing improvements and is requesting relief from DMMC Section 30.86.090 (A.1) to exceed the fence/wall height allowance within required front and street-side yard setbacks were a maximum height of 3.5 feet is allowed along Luneta Drive at the east (front yard) property line and 14th Street at the north (street-side yard) 28 August 25, 2026 Item 14
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT: V25-002
February 10, 2026
property line, and 3.5 – 6 feet is allowed interior of the front property line. The Applicant’s request also seeks to exceed the maximum allowed entryway structure dimensions of DMMC Section
30.86.090 (A.1.). Plans depicting the Applicant’sreconstructed fencing/gates and entryway structure, requested to be retained, are included as Exhibit B. Site photos of the constructed fences are shown in Exhibit C.
The specific dimensions of the Applicant’s Variance request are summarized below:
- Fencing along Luneta Drive: 5.5-feet to 7-feet-high for a total linear span of 105 feet - Fencing along 14th Street: 6.7-feet to 8-feet-high for a total linear span of 123 feet - Fencing north of the parking area at the Southeast corner of the lot is 5.5 to 7.5 tall for a total linear span of 20 feet
- Entryway structure along Luneta Drive: 5’-10” wide, 11’-8” deep, 7’ high Walls and fencing along the western property line (rear yard) and the alley are nonconforming and some places over-height, but they were not reconstructed by the Applicant and are not part of the Variance request. Those walls and fencing may remain nonconforming until such time that they are removed or need to be reconstructed beyond regular, non-structural maintenance and repair.
The table below summarizes the permitted fence/wall height limits in a residential zone pursuant to DMMC 30.86.090(A.1). The Applicant’s request is included for comparison.
Fence/Wall Height when a
Required Yard (Setback) is
abutting a Street
Fence/Wall
Max. Height
Fence/Wall Height Variance Request
Located at the property line (PL) 3.5’ max. *Front: 5.5’ to 7’ **Street Side: 6.7’ to 8’
Setback 2-feet from the PL 4.0’ max. ***Parking Area: 5.5’-6.3’ Setback 4-feet from the PL 4.5’ max. ***Parking Area: 7’-7.5’ Setback 6-feet from the PL 5.0’ max’ ***Parking Area: 7’-7.5’ Setback 8-feet from the PL 5.5’ max’ ***Parking Area: 7’-7.5’ Setback 10-feet from the PL 6.0’ max. ***Parking Area: 7’-7.5’ *Front Yard Setback is located along Luneta Drive
** Street Side Yard Setback is located along 14th Street *** Parking Area is located at the southeast corner of the property The table below summarizes the permitted entryway structure permitted in a front yard setback of a residential zone pursuant to DMMC 30.86.090 - Fences/Retaining Walls. (A.4). The Applicant’s request is included for comparison.
Entryway Structure DMMC
23.86.090 Max. Variance Request
Maximum Width (measured parallel to the street) 8-feet wide 11-feet, 8-inches Maximum Depth (measured perpendicular to the street) 5-feet deep 5-feet, 10-inches Maximum Height 10-feet high 7-feet*
* Complies with the DMMC; no Variance required.
29 August 25, 2026 Item 14
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT: V25-002
February 10, 2026
Design Review Considerations
If the Variance is granted, the Applicant will be required to obtain the appropriate Design Review approvals for the proposed improvements. Pursuant to DMMC 23.08 the Design Review Ordinance, fence and walls exceeding 6-feet-high would not qualify for Administrative Design Review and would instead be reviewed by the Design Review Board at a noticed public hearing. As proposed, the project would be reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB) for compliance with the City’s Design Review Ordinance (DMMC 23.08).
ANALYSIS:
Del Mar Municipal Code Section 30.78.030 (A - D) stipulates that a Variance application must comply with the following four standards (findings). The required standards/findings are cited below and are followed by staff’s proposed findings for the Variance. The Applicant’s legal counsel has submitted suggested findings for the Commission’s consideration and is included in Exhibit D. Based on the analysis provided in the proposed findings below, staff is not recommending Planning Commission approval of the Variance.
A. A Variance from the terms of the Zoning Ordinance shall be granted only when, because of the special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
Proposed Finding:
The Variance should not be granted because the lot is not constrained by special circumstances in terms of its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. The property is located in the R1-10 Zone and is a rectangular corner lot located at the southwest corner of Luneta Drive and 14th Street.
The property is approximately 17,186 square-feet in size and is approximately 110-feet wide by 158- feet deep, which exceeds the R1-10 Zone minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, minimum lot width of 75-feet, and minimum lot depth of 100-feet. The property also abuts an alley, which pursuant to DMMC Section 30.86.200(D), allows half the width of the alley to measure the required side yard setback, which in this case results in a “zero- setback” along the alley.
The topography of 14th Street slopes naturally to the west, as do all properties along 14th Street. The topography of the lot steps down from Luneta drive and the building pad on the eastern-half and western-half are relatively flat, but the two halves are separated by approximately 10-feet of elevation difference. The property is developed with a recently remodeled nonconforming 3-story primary residence and an attached two-story Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) with recent yard improvements consisting of a pool, spa, fireplace and pool equipment. The existing improvements comply with all required yard setback requirements of the R1-10 Zone which requires a minimum setback of 20-foot front yard (Luneta Drive side), 10-feet street side yard (14th Street side), 25-feet rear yard (east side), and 0-lot line setback for the interior side yard abutting the 20-foot-wide alley.
The Applicant has recently planted a row of hedges on the inside of the property abutting the wall facing 14th Street and Luneta Drive, which in time will grow denser and higher, and can provide 30 August 25, 2026 Item 14
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT: V25-002
February 10, 2026
privacy to the residence/ADU, pool and yards facing 14th Street and Luneta Drive, see Exhibit E.
Additionally, the size of the lot provides opportunities to provide pool safety fencing outside of the required yards (setbacks), such as the five-foot-tall safety barrier (fence) shown in Exhibit F that was installed around the pool after its construction demonstrating compliance with California Building Code pool safety requirements.
Therefore, the Variance should not be granted to exceed the maximum fence heights permitted in DMMC 30.86.090(A), because the property does not have unusual or special circumstances related to lot size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. The property would not be deprived of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under the R1-10, most of which have open yards incorporating landscaping, lower walls, or higher walls set further back from streets, and entryway structures that comply with the DMMC size limitations.
B. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated.
Proposed Finding:
The Variance to allow fences/gates up to 8-feet-high and an entryway structure larger than current DMMC allows would grant special privileges due to the property’s shape, topography, and location being similar to other properties in the R1-10 zone. Other properties in the vicinity in the R1-10 zone have open yards incorporating landscaping, lower walls, or higher walls set further back from streets, and entryway structures that comply with the DMMC size limitations.
C. A variance will not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulation governing the parcel of property. The provisions of this section shall not apply to conditional use permits.
Proposed Finding:
The proposed wall/fences/gates and entryway structure is a permitted associated use for an existing primary residence which is an allowed use in the R1-10 Zone.
D. No variance shall be granted if the inability to enjoy the privilege enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification:
1. Could be avoided by an alternate development plan;
Proposed Finding:
The project request could be avoided by an alternate development plan in that, pursuant to DMMC
30.86.090(A)(1), the Applicant would be able to locate an alternate 5-foot-high wall/fence that is setback 6-feet from the property lines fronting Luneta Drive and 14th Street to comply with the 5-foothigh pool enclosure Building Code requirements. As depicted in Exhibit F, another alternative is to install the required pool safety fencing around the pool itself, not the perimeter of the property. 31 August 25, 2026 Item 14
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT: V25-002
February 10, 2026
The applicant can reduce the entryway arbor structure to comply with DMMC 30.86.090(A)(4) which allows one entryway structure within a street frontage setback if it does not exceed 10-feet high, 5- feet deep and 8-feet wide and meet the 50% openness on all vertical planes and overhead covering.
The Applicant has also recently planted a row of privacy hedge on the inside of the property abutting the wall facing 14th Street and Luneta Drive, which in time will grow denser and higher and provide privacy to the residence/ADU, pool and yards facing 14th Street and Luneta Drive.
2. Is self-induced as a result of an action taken by the property owner or the owner's predecessor;
Proposed Finding:
In this case, the need for a Variance is self-induced, as the Applicant demolished and reconstructed significantly nonconforming perimetersite fencing when the provisions of DMMC Section 30.86.090 allow for the ability to construct privacy and pool security fencing with a modified design and locations. Like other properties in the vicinity subject to identical zoning, the Applicant could have placed walls/fencing further inside of the lot’s property western, northern, and eastern property lines to achieve greater height for privacy and security.
3. Would allow such a degree of variation as to constitute a rezoning or other amendment to the zoning code; or
Proposed Finding:
The installed fencing along the north and east boundaries of the property was constructed to heights that far exceed the maximum standards of the DMMC and what would be allowed in any required yard (setback) within the City.
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any private or public nuisance.
Proposed Finding:
The request would not result in the authorization or legalization of a private or public nuisance since walls and fences are allowed uses in the R1-10 zone.
CORRESPONDENCE:
As of the writing of this report, the Planning Department has not received letters of concern or objection regarding the requested Variance.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is staff’s recommendation, supported by analysis provided herein, that the Planning Commission adopt the draft Resolution of denial included with this report as Exhibit G, as required findings for approval of the Variance request cannot be made for the requested fences/gates and entryway structure to exceed the maximum heights allowed within required yard setbacks pursuant the DMMC.
32 August 25, 2026 Item 14
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT: V25-002
February 10, 2026
Respectfully Submitted,
Jean Crutchfield
Associate Planner
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A - Location Map
Exhibit B - Project Plans
Exhibit C - Applicant’s Site Photos
Exhibit D - Applicant’s Suggested Variance Findings
Exhibit E - Staff Photos of Hedge
Exhibit F – Photos of Pool Safety Fencing
Exhibit G - Draft Resolution
33 August 25, 2026 Item 14
EXHIBIT A
1'' = 109 ft 355 14th Street 02/05/2026
This map may represent a visual display of related geographic information. Data provided here is not a guarantee of actual field conditions. To ensure complete accuracy, please contact the responsible staff for the most up-to-date information. 34 August 25, 2026 Item 14
L U N E T A D R I V E A L L E Y 20'-0" F.Y.S.B. 2 A-2.0 3 A-2.0 5 A-2.0 4 A-2.0 CL REPLACE FENCE PER 1A-2.0 1 4 T H S T R E E T CL CL C CL L CL REPLACE FENCE PER NEW MAN GATE REPLACE MAN GATE 2 A-2.0 1A-2.0 APPROXIMATE FOOTPRINT OF OLD PERGOLA REPLACE FENCE PER 5 A-2.0 REPLACE MAN GATE REPLACE FENCE PER 4 A-2.0 ~11'-8", V.I.F.
(3540 mm) ~5'-10" (1770 mm) REPLACE FENCE PER 3 A-2.0 (N) ~23'-2" (7040 mm) EXISTING GATE TO REMAIN EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN (E) GARAGE & GUEST HOUSE EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN (N) ~23'-3" (7078 mm) (N) ~18'-0"
(5500 mm)
(N) ~105'-3"
(32060 mm) (N) ~148'-0" (44835 mm) (E) HOUSE(E) ADU
10'-0"
S.S.Y.S.B.
7'-6"
S.S.Y.S.B. 25'-0" R.Y.S.B. (E) SPA (E) POOL (E) DRIVEWAY (E) PARKING (E) FIREPLACE (E) EQUIPMENT (E) PATIO REPLACE MAN GATE AND PERGOLA ~8'-3" ~9'-0" 08-20-25 CFS JES 1913 DEL MAR, CA 92014 355 14TH STREET VOIGTLANDER GUEST HOUSE VARIANCE APPLICATION REN. 7/31/2030 No. C 21312 T A OF E S T NR FO L I CA AI D E S C ME A L I J SE N ETE E. SN D T C I RCH A A-1.2 HEIGHT EXHIBIT SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" SITE PLAN 1 HEIGHT KEY 5'-6" TO 6'-4" TALL 6'-0" TO 6'-4" TALL 6'-0" TO 7'-0" TALL 7'-0" TO 7'-6" TALL 6'-7" TO 8'-0" TALL 7'-0" TO 8'-0" TALL 35 August 25, 2026 Item 14
L U N E T A D R I V E A L L E Y 20'-0" F.Y.S.B.
2 A-2.0
3 A-2.0
5 A-2.0
4 A-2.0
CL REPLACE FENCE PER
1A-2.0 1 4 T H S T R E E T
CL
CL
C
CL
L
CL REPLACE FENCE PER NEW MAN GATE REPLACE MAN GATE
2 A-2.0
1A-2.0 APPROXIMATE FOOTPRINT OF OLD PERGOLA REPLACE FENCE PER 5 A-2.0
(N) TF: 169.67', V.I.F. (E) BF: 160.0', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 168.67', V.I.F. (E) BF: 161.0', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 169.0', V.I.F. (E) BF: 162.0', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 169.42', V.I.F. (E) BF: 161.67', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 169.0', V.I.F. (E) BF: 162.0', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 171.13', V.I.F. (E) BF: 164.8', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 170.3', V.I.F. (E) BF: 164.0', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 170.7', V.I.F. (E) BF: 164.4', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 170.0', V.I.F. (E) BF: 163.8', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 169.8', V.I.F. (E) BF: 162.8', V.I.F.(N) TF: 169.8', V.I.F. (E) BF: 163.0', V.I.F. (N) TF: 169.8', V.I.F. (E) BF: 163.3', V.I.F. (N) TF: 169.8', V.I.F. (E) BF: 163.8', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 169.8', V.I.F. (E) BF: 163.5', V.I.F. REPLACE MAN GATE REPLACE FENCE PER 4 A-2.0
~11'-8", V.I.F.
(3540 mm) ~5'-10" (1770 mm)
(N) TF: 169.8', V.I.F. (E) BF: 161.8', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 169.8', V.I.F. (E) BF: 160.8', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 169.8', V.I.F. (E) BF: 160.8', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 160.9', V.I.F. (E) BF: 152.9', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 159.9', V.I.F. (E) BF: 152.9', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 159.9', V.I.F. (E) BF: 151.9', V.I.F. REPLACE FENCE PER 3 A-2.0 (N) ~23'-2" (7040 mm) EXISTING GATE TO REMAIN EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN (E) GARAGE & GUEST HOUSE EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN (N) ~23'-3" (7078 mm) (N) ~18'-0"
(5500 mm)
(N) ~105'-3"
(32060 mm) (N) ~148'-0" (44835 mm) (E) HOUSE(E) ADU
10'-0"
S.S.Y.S.B.
7'-6"
S.S.Y.S.B. 25'-0" R.Y.S.B. (E) SPA (E) POOL (E) DRIVEWAY (E) PARKING (E) FIREPLACE (E) EQUIPMENT (E) PATIO REPLACE MAN GATE AND PERGOLA ~8'-3" ~9'-0" 08-20-25 CFS JES 1913 DEL MAR, CA 92014 355 14TH STREET VOIGTLANDER GUEST HOUSE VARIANCE APPLICATION REN. 7/31/2030 No. C 21312 TA
OF
E
ST
NR
FO
L I CA
AI
D
E
S
C
ME
A
L I
J SE
N
ET
EE E.
SN
D
TC
I
ARCH A-1.0 SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" SITE PLAN
1 APPLICANT: ROSEE & CHRISTIAN VOIGTLANDER SITE ADDRESS: 355 14TH STREET DEL MAR, CA 92014 APN: 300-020-18-00 LOT SIZE: 17,186 S.F. / 0.394 ACRES ZONING: R1-10 SETBACKS: 20' (FRONT) 10' (STREET SIDE) 7.5' (ALLEY) 20' (REAR) EXISTING LAND USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED LAND USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE-V (NOT SPRINKLERED) PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT SCOPE NEW PROPERTY LINE FENCE PER PLAN · NO NEW LOT COVERAGE· NO NEW SQUARE FOOTAGE· NO NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA SHEET INDEX A-1.0 SITE PLAN A-2.0 ELEVATIONS 36 August 25, 2026 Item 14
~6'-7"
(2006 mm)
~8'-0"
(2400 mm)
~8'-0"
(2400 mm)
~7'-0"
(2100 mm)
~8'-0"
(2400 mm)
~7'-6"
(2286 mm) NEW MAN GATE NEW MAN GATE
~7'-0"
(2100 mm) METAL GRILLE, TYP. METAL POST, TYP. PRE-FINISHED PANEL, TYP. PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE FRONT YARD SETBACK REAR YARD SETBACK 25'-0" 20'-0" 2 A-2.0 ~9'-8" (3230 mm) ~148'-0" (44835 mm) ~4'-0" (1240 mm) 5'-6" TO 6'-4" TALL ~7'-0"
(2100 mm)
~6'-0"
(1800 mm)
~5'-6"
(1676 mm)
~6'-4"
(1920 mm)
~6'-0"
(1800 mm) 1A-2.0 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 3 A-2.0 PRE-FINISHED PANEL, TYP. METAL GRILLE, TYP. METAL POST, TYP. MAN GATE ~105'-3" (32060 mm) ~5'-8" (1895 mm) ~7'-0" METAL GATE ROOF PER PLAN APPROXIMATE ELEVATION OF OLD PERGOLA ~6'-4"
(1920 mm) 2 A-2.0
~7'-9"
(2350 mm) PROPERTY LINE FRONT YARD SETBACK 20'-0" METAL GRILLE, TYP. ~23'-3" (7078 mm) ~5'-6"
(1650 mm) ~4'-0" (1220 mm) PRE-FINISHED PANEL, TYP. MAN GATE NOT INCLUDED VARIES
~8'-0" MAX.
VARIES
~2'-0" MAX. METAL GRILLE, TYP. PRE-FINISHED PANEL, TYP. METAL POST, TYP. 08-20-25 CFS JES 1913 DEL MAR, CA 92014 355 14TH STREET VOIGTLANDER GUEST HOUSE VARIANCE APPLICATION REN. 7/31/2030 No. C 21312 T A OF E S T NR FO L I CA AI D E S C ME A L I J SE N ETE E. SN D T C I RCH A A-2.0 ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" REPLACEMENT FENCE (AT 14TH STREET) 1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" REPLACEMENT FENCE (AT LUNETA DRIVE) 2 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" REPLACEMENT FENCE (AT PARKING) 3 6 - TYPICAL SECTION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 37 August 25, 2026 Item 14
355 14th Street
Exhibit 1 of 10
VOIGTLANDER RESIDENCE
& SNEED
ARCHITECTS
BOKAL SITE PHOTO SURVEY KEY
Scale: N.T.S.
1 (E) HOUSE
11 6 1 4 T H S T R E E T A L L E Y(E) GARAGE
L U N E T A D R I V E
8 7
10 2
3 4
5 9
12 13
14 17 18
15 16
38 August 25, 2026 Item 14
& SNEED
ARCHITECTS
BOKAL SITE PHOTO SURVEY
Scale: N.T.S.
TYPICAL FENCE (NW CORNER)
2 REPLACE MAN GATE
1 355 14th Street
Exhibit 2 of 10
VOIGTLANDER RESIDENCE
39 August 25, 2026 Item 14
& SNEED
ARCHITECTS
BOKAL SITE PHOTO SURVEY
Scale: N.T.S.
MAN GATE @ 14TH STREET (NE CORNER)
TYPICAL FENCE @ 14TH STREET
4 3
355 14th Street
Exhibit 3 of 10
VOIGTLANDER RESIDENCE
40 August 25, 2026 Item 14
& SNEED
ARCHITECTS
BOKAL SITE PHOTO SURVEY
Scale: N.T.S.
TYPICAL FENCE (LUNETA DRIVE)
TYPICAL FENCE @ NE CORNER
6 5
355 14th Street
Exhibit 4 of 10
VOIGTLANDER RESIDENCE
41 August 25, 2026 Item 14
& SNEED
ARCHITECTS
BOKAL SITE PHOTO SURVEY
Scale: N.T.S.
MAN GATE RECESS
MAN GATE @ LUNETA DRIVE
8 7
355 14th Street
Exhibit 5 of 10
VOIGTLANDER RESIDENCE
42 August 25, 2026 Item 14
& SNEED
ARCHITECTS
BOKAL SITE PHOTO SURVEY
Scale: N.T.S.
FENCE @ PARKING STALLS
TYPICAL FENCE @ LUNETA DRIVE
10 9
355 14th Street
Exhibit 6 of 10
VOIGTLANDER RESIDENCE
43 August 25, 2026 Item 14
& SNEED
ARCHITECTS
BOKAL SITE PHOTO SURVEY
Scale: N.T.S.
FENCE @ ALLEY
FENCE AT PARKING STALLS
12 11
355 14th Street
Exhibit 7 of 10
VOIGTLANDER RESIDENCE
44 August 25, 2026 Item 14
& SNEED
ARCHITECTS
BOKAL SITE PHOTO SURVEY
Scale: N.T.S.
EXISTING CAR GATE
EXISTING FENCE @ ALLEY
14 13
355 14th Street
Exhibit 8 of 10
VOIGTLANDER RESIDENCE
45 August 25, 2026 Item 14
& SNEED
ARCHITECTS
BOKAL SITE PHOTO SURVEY
Scale: N.T.S.
EXISTING FENCE @ ALLEY
EXISTING FENCE @ ALLEY
16 15
355 14th Street
Exhibit 9 of 10
VOIGTLANDER RESIDENCE
46 August 25, 2026 Item 14
& SNEED
ARCHITECTS
BOKAL SITE PHOTO SURVEY
Scale: N.T.S.
EXISTING FENCE @ NEIGHBOR
EXISTING FENCE @ NEIGHBOR
18 17
355 14th Street
Exhibit 10 of 10
VOIGTLANDER RESIDENCE
47 August 25, 2026 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
January 20, 2026
VIA EMAIL
Jean Crutchfield, Associate Planner
City of Del Mar Planning Department
1050 Camino del Mar
Del Mar, California 92014
[email protected]
Re: Voigtlander variance application (V25-002)
Dear Ms. Crutchfield:
Thank you for your assistance with processing the Voigtlanders’ variance application. To assist you in drafting your staff report, I am providing proposed findings for each of the elements.
A. A variance from the terms of the Zoning Ordinance shall be granted only when, because of the special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
There are several special circumstances affecting this lot:
First, the lot is surrounded by streets on three sides (14th Street, Luneta Drive, and an unnamed alley), which allow only 3.5-ft fences along the property line. With 3.5-ft fences on three sides, the entire lot would be exposed and lack the privacy expected for a private residence and backyard.
Regular lots have just one side with street frontage, allowing 6-ft privacy fences on the other three sides. Even most corner lots can at least have privacy fences on two sides. This lot therefore lacks the privacy of a normal residential lot.
Second, the lot is on an extremely busy corner compared to most residential neighborhoods in the city. There is constant traffic, and many employees and patrons of Del Mar Plaza park on these streets because parking is prohibited on the adjacent streets. The need for privacy is therefore greater than for other lots in the same zone.
Third, the lot is on a slope, and the existing principal and accessory structures, including the decks and hot tub, were designed and sited assuming the continued existence of the legal nonconforming 48 August 25, 2026 Item 14
Jean Crutchfield
January 20, 2026
fence of 6.5–9 feet. Eventually, however, the old and dying vegetation became so intertwined with the fence that it could not be removed without causing further damage to the fence. Unfortunately, a car crashed through the fence near the front gate, forcing the Voigtlanders to do something about the fence. But replacing the nonconforming fence with a conforming fence would destroy the privacy that the site was designed to have. Anyone walking along Luneta Drive or down 14th Street or the alley would be able to look down directly into all the side yards and backyard.
Fourth, the yard facing Luneta Drive is below street grade and is protected by a small retaining wall parallel to the street. A conforming fence atop the retaining wall would be as short as 1–2 feet on the street side.
Fifth, the existing pool and hot tub require least a 5-ft fence and locking gate under the municipal code and state law. A 5-ft fence is prohibited without a variance.
Sixth, because of the existing development on the lot, there is not sufficient space to relocate the fence farther from the property line to gain the additional height allowed under subsection (1) of the fence ordinance.
B. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated.
No special conditions are needed, but the Voigtlanders are willing to agree to a condition requiring at least the top 12-15 inches to be open to air and light to reduce the visual impact of the height.
C. A variance will not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulation governing the parcel of property. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to conditional use permits.
This property is zoned residential, and the existing use is residential. No unauthorized use is proposed.
D. No variance shall be granted if the inability to enjoy the privilege enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification:
1. Could be avoided by an alternate development plan;
The only possible alternative would be a shorter fence, which would destroy the privacy benefits of the existing design.
2. Is self-induced as a result of an action taken by the property owner or the owner’s predecessor;
49 August 25, 2026 Item 14
Jean Crutchfield
January 20, 2026
The Voigtlanders and their predecessor have no control over the situation of their lot with public rights-of-way on three sides, the volume of public parking on the streets, the slope of the lot, the existing development pattern on the lot, or the state law requiring at least a 5-foot fence protecting the pool.
3. Would allow such a degree of variation as to constitute a rezoning or other amendment to the zoning code; or
While the height of the fences would be as much as 3 to 4 feet above the maximum, the fence would be the same height as the fence it replaces, which existed for decades without complaint or issue. The height would also be similar to the height of fences on interior lot lines, thereby providing a comparable degree of privacy to the Voigtlanders. The applicant will providing under separate cover information on existing fence heights for other properties in the neighborhood.
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any private or public nuisance.
As noted, a fence of identical dimensions was in place for decades (according to our research, at least as far back as 1976 and probably further) without any complaint or issue.
Thank you for processing our application. Please do not hesitate to reach out if there is any further information that would be helpful to your analysis.
Very truly yours,
AANNESTAD ANDELIN & CORN LLP
Lee M. Andelin
cc: Jim Sneed
Christian Voigtlander
Rosee Voigtlander
50 August 25, 2026 Item 14
History of the Fence at 355 14th Street
1. Overall conclusion:
Based on available records and photos, the property had a tall fence along the entire street frontage (Luneta and 14th Street) dating back to at least 1976 and possibly going back to the1950s.
References to the height of the fence vary from 9 feet, 8 feet and 6.5+ feet, depending on the date/source.
The Voigtlanders replaced the existing fence like-for-like in April/May 2025.
2. Timeline and supporting evidence:
I. Voigtlander ownership (6/19/2019 to today)
• Like-for-like replacement in April/May 2025 to address major structural damage because of a car crashing into the fence on April 10, 2025; and based on the assumptions that the City had approved a “repair/replace in kind” approach as part of the overall remodeling project for the property
• Height of the replacement fence is at or below the height of the fence when the property was purchased in 2019 (see contractor documentation and before/after photos)
• Took great pains to replicate the exact measurement of each existing panel II. Uke ownership (10/28/1994 to 6/19/2019) – “seismic reinforcement only” • Listing sheet of the property in 2018 references “privileged privacy provided by the eight-foot wall around the property”
• Based on discussions with Alan Uke in June 2025, he only “seismically reinforced” the existing fence, by adding railroad posts on Luneta and 14th St to support the weight of the increasingly overgrown vegetation and offset the instability of the aging fence
• No building records pertaining to any work on the fence III. Watkins ownership (1/2/1981 to 10/28/1994) – “fence refurbishment” • Page 1 of V-84-9 under “Findings for Approval” states that “The property currently enjoys rights to a nonconforming 6.5+ foot trellis/fence placed at or near the lot line along the property’s approximate 265-foot street frontage” • Landscaping plans related to DRB V-82-10 show the existing North/East and South fence with a label “Existing Fence to be Refurbished”
IV. Pre-Watkins ownership (going back to 1950s)
• San Diego Building Record for 300-020-18-00 on page 2 under “Miscellaneous Structures” references a “Lattice fence” (9 hi by 400’ ?), appraised at $500 51 August 25, 2026 Item 14
• Based on page 1 of the same document and the review of the handwriting of different appraisers in the “Computation” table, the fence appraisal was NOT performed in 1983 by DODGE which is consistent with the DRB documents for the Watkins remodeling project (see above) that did not contain any changes to the existing fence
• Therefore, the fence appraisal took place in 1976 (prior appraisal entry) or earlier.
Most likely, it was first recorded by Becker in 1958 in the row “Yard Imps” valued at $500
• The oldest available satellite photo from 1953 (purchased on historicalaerials.com, original source USDA) very clearly shows a fence along the entire 14th street frontage, and a partial fence along Luneta Drive
52 August 25, 2026 Item 14
53 August 25, 2026 Item 14
14th street frontage
54 August 25, 2026 Item 14
Luneta drive
Height in relation to the stop sign and cars at Luneta and 14th 55 August 25, 2026 Item 14
Height in relation to stop sign
Honda sedan is approximately 55 inches tall
56 August 25, 2026 Item 14
57 August 25, 2026 Item 14
58 August 25, 2026 Item 14
59 August 25, 2026 Item 14
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA DENYING VARIANCE V25-002 FROM DEL MAR
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 30.86.090(A)(1), A REQUEST TO ALLOW THE RETENTION OF FENCING AND GATES UP TO 7-FEET IN HEIGHT AT THE FRONT AND UP TO 8-FEET IN HEIGHT IN THE STREET SIDE PROPERTY LINES WHERE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 3.5-FEET IS
ALLOWED, AND FROM DMMC SECTION 30.86.090(A)(2) AND DMMC SECTION 30.86.090(A)(4) TO ALLOW THE RETENTION OF AN
ENTRYWAY (ARBOR) STRUCTURE IN EXCESS OF THE DIMENSIONS
ALLOWED IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF A PROPERTY IN THE R1- 10 ZONE, LOCATED AT 355 14TH STREET, DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA.
APN: 300-020-18-00
WHEREAS, Christian and Rosee Voigtlander, (APPLICANT) are the owners of property located at 355 14th Street, Assessor’s Parcel Number 300-020-18-00 (PROPERTY), Del Mar, California; and
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2025, the City received registered complaints which claimed that the Applicant had completely reconstructed (nonconforming) walls and fences along Luneta Drive and 14th Street property boundaries that appeared to exceed the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) maximum height allowed in street yard setbacks; and WHEREAS, the pursuant to DMMC 30.76-Nonconformities, a nonconforming structure inconsistent with the DMMC development standard(s) once removed and abated, may not be reconstructed in-kind, except through approval of a Variance pursuant to DMMC 30.78 - Variance; and
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2025, the Applicant applied for a Variance (V25-002) from Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section 30.86.090(A)(1) to allow the retention of fencing and gates up to 7-feet in height at the front and up to 8-feet in height in the street side property lines where a maximum height of 3.5-feet is allowed; DMMC Section 30.86.090(A)(2) to allow the retention of fencing and gates up to 7.5-feet in height in the rear yard setback where a maximum of 6-feet is allowed; and DMMC Section 30.86.090(A)(4) to allow the retention of an entryway (arbor) structure in excess of the dimensions allowed in the front yard setback of a property located at 355 14th Street, Del Mar, California (APN: 300-020-18-00); and WHEREAS, in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission’s action to reject or disapprove a project is statutorily exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15270(a); and WHEREAS, on January 10, 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Del Mar held a public hearing on the Variance application (V25-002) at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include without limitation:
60 August 25, 2026 Item 14
Resolution No. PC-2025-XX
V25-002
a. Plans submitted by the Applicant.
b. Written information submitted with the application.
c. Oral testimony from Staff, the applicant, and the public. d. Staff report, dated January 10, 2026, which is incorporated by this reference, as though fully set forth herein.
e. Additional information submitted during the hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Del Mar that with regard to application V25-002, the Planning Commission makes the following findings:
A. A Variance from the terms of the Zoning Ordinance shall be granted only when, because of the special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
The Variance should not be granted because the lot is not constrained by special circumstances in terms of its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. The property is located in the R1-10 Zone and is a rectangular corner lot located at the southwest corner of Luneta Drive and 14th Street. The property is approximately 17,186 square-feet in size and is approximately 110-feet wide by 158-feet deep, which exceeds the R1-10 Zone minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, minimum lot width of 75-feet, and minimum lot depth of 100-feet. The property also abuts an alley, which pursuant to DMMC Section
30.86.200(D), allows half the width of the alley to measure the required side yard setback, which in this case results in a “zero- setback” along the alley.
The topography of 14th Street slopes naturally to the west, as do all properties along 14th Street. The topography of the lot steps down from Luneta drive and the building pad on the eastern-half and western-half are relatively flat, but the two halves are separated by approximately 10-feet of elevation difference. The property is developed with a recently remodeled nonconforming 3-story primary residence and an attached two-story Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) with recent yard improvements consisting of a pool, spa, fireplace and pool equipment. The existing improvements comply with all required yard setback requirements of the R1-10 Zone which requires a minimum setback of 20-foot front yard (Luneta Drive side), 10-feet street side yard (14th Street side), 25-feet rear yard (east side), and 0-lot line setback for the interior side yard abutting the 20-foot-wide alley.
The Applicant has recently planted a row of hedges on the inside of the property abutting the wall facing 14th Street and Luneta Drive, which in time will grow denser and higher, and can provide privacy to the residence/ADU, pool and yards facing 14th Street and Luneta Drive.
Additionally, the size of the lot provides opportunities to provide pool safety fencing outside of the required yards (setbacks), such as the five-foot-tall safety barrier (fence) that was installed around the pool after its construction demonstrating compliance with California Building Code pool safety requirements.
61 August 25, 2026 Item 14
Resolution No. PC-2025-XX
V25-002
Therefore, the Variance should not be granted to exceed the maximum fence heights permitted in DMMC 30.86.090(A), because the property does not have unusual or special circumstances related to lot size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. The property would not be deprived of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under the R1- 10, most of which have open yards incorporating landscaping, lower walls, or higher walls set further back from streets, and entryway structures that comply with the DMMC size limitations.
B. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated.
The Variance to allow fences/gates up to 8-feet-high and an entryway structure larger than current DMMC allows would grant special privileges due to the property’s shape, topography, and location being similar to other properties in the R1-10 zone. Other properties in the vicinity in the R1-10 zone have open yards incorporating landscaping, lower walls, or higher walls set further back from streets, and entryway structures that comply with the DMMC size limitations.
C. A variance will not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulation governing the parcel of property. The provisions of this section shall not apply to conditional use permits.
The proposed wall/fences/gates and entryway structure is a permitted associated use for an existing primary residence which is an allowed use in the R1-10 Zone.
D. No variance shall be granted if the inability to enjoy the privilege enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification:
1. Could be avoided by an alternate development plan;
The project request could be avoided by an alternate development plan in that, pursuant to DMMC 30.86.090(A)(1), the Applicant would be able to locate an alternate 5-foot-high wall/fence that is setback 6-feet from the property lines fronting Luneta Drive and 14th Street to comply with the 5-foot-high pool enclosure Building Code requirements. Another alternative is to install the required pool safety fencing around the pool itself, not the perimeter of the property.
The applicant can reduce the entryway arbor structure to comply with DMMC
30.86.090(A)(4) which allows one entryway structure within a street frontage setback if it does not exceed 10-feet high, 5-feet deep and 8-feet wide and meet the 50% openness on all vertical planes and overhead covering. The Applicant has also recently planted a row of privacy hedge on the inside of the property abutting the wall facing 14th Street and Luneta Drive, which in time will grow denser and higher 62 August 25, 2026 Item 14
Resolution No. PC-2025-XX
V25-002
and provide privacy to the residence/ADU, pool and yards facing 14th Street and Luneta Drive.
2. Is self-induced as a result of an action taken by the property owner or the owner's predecessor;
In this case, the need for a Variance is self-induced, as the Applicant demolished and reconstructed significantly non-conforming perimeter site fencing when the provisions of DMMC Section 30.86.090 allow for the ability to construct privacy and pool security fencing with a modified design and locations. Like other properties in the vicinity subject to identical zoning, the Applicant could have placed walls/fencing further inside of the lot’s property western, northern, and eastern property lines to achieve greater height for privacy and security.
3. Would allow such a degree of variation as to constitute a rezoning or other amendment to the zoning code; or
The installed fencing along the north and east boundaries of the property was constructed to heights that far exceed the maximum standards of the DMMC and what would be allowed in any required yard (setback) within the City.
4. Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any private or public nuisance.
The request would not result in the authorization or legalization of a private or public nuisance since walls and fences are allowed uses in the R1-10 zone.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Del Mar that application V25-002 is denied.
63 August 25, 2026 Item 14
Resolution No. PC-2025-XX
V25-002
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Del Mar, this 10TH day of January 2026 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________________
Philip M. Posner, Chair
Del Mar Planning Commission
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Karen Brindley
Planning and Community Development Director
64 August 25, 2026 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
February 9, 2026
VIA EMAIL
City of Del Mar Planning Commission
c/o Jean Crutchfield, Associate Planner
1050 Camino del Mar
Del Mar, California 92014
[email protected]
Re: Agenda Item 1: Voigtlander variance application (V25-002) Dear Chair Posner, Vice Chair Grewal, and Honorable Commissioners:
I write to address certain issues omitted from the staff report on this matter. For the reasons described below and in my letter dated January 20, 2026 (attached to the staff report), findings can be made to support a variance, and the Planning Commission should vote to approve a variance for the Voigtlanders.
First, the staff report is incorrect in stating that there is nothing unique about this property that would justify a variance. Stunningly, the staff report fails to even mention the primary factor presented in support of the Voigtlanders’ application, namely, the extreme traffic and parking around the perimeter of their property. As described in the Voigtlanders’ application, this property is adjacent to a busy commercial district, which includes the Del Mar Plaza, L’Auberge, and numerous business establishments along Camino del Mar. Notably, 14th Street is the first street to the south of Del Mar Plaza that allows free, public street parking. The businesses at Del Mar Plaza notoriously do not pay for their employees to park in the underground garage, so the employees are forced to park on 14th Street, Luneta Drive, and other surrounding streets. And some patrons of these businesses choose to park on the streets to avoid paying the parking fee. Thus, these streets are heavily trafficked and full of parked cars all day and into the evening, seven days a week. Users often leave litter behind as well. Photographs of these conditions are enclosed. See also the attached parking study, commissioned by the City in 2013.
Conditions have only worsened since 2013. The Voigtlanders have no objection to the public’s use of the street, but they cannot enjoy the level of privacy expected for a family home without a fence that exceeds the 3.5 feet allowed by code. This is a special condition, unique to this property, that justifies the granting of a variance, similar to variances that have been granted for other heavily trafficked areas, such as properties adjacent to beach access points.
Item 1
65 August 25, 2026 Item 14
City of Del Mar Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
Despite what is suggested in the staff report, it would not be a straightforward matter to relocate the fence closer to the house. On the east side of the lot, facing Luneta Drive, there is a sharp drop of approximately three feet from the street grade, with the soil held in place by a retaining wall.
The privacy fence must be located at the top of that elevation, close to the street, to prevent pedestrians from falling and injuring themselves. If the fence and entryway were relocated any closer to the house, that area would be an exposed hazard. A relocated fence would also leave the Voigtlanders without a front courtyard, an amenity common to Del Mar homes. On the north side, facing 14th Street, pulling the fence closer to the house would effectively eliminate the side yard and require relocation of the permitted hot tub. Thus, it is unfair for staff to say that this is a problem of the Voigtlanders’ own making and could be avoided by pushing the fences toward the interior of the lot.
Related to this point, when the Voigtlanders were planning their remodel, they initially considered a full teardown and rebuild. Staff informed them that if they did so, they would have to bring nonconforming structures on the property into compliance, but if they did just a remodel and minor addition, they could repair and replace nonconforming structures in kind. Because they did not want to lose the privacy afforded by the existing fence, the Voigtlanders elected to do a remodel and minor addition. Consistent with staff’s direction, the plans approved through administrative design review point include callouts stating: “EXISTING SITE WALL TO REMAIN, REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE IN-KIND.” A copy of the relevant page of the approved plans is attached.
The Voigtlanders did not simply choose to do this project. While the original fence was very old and in need of substantial repair, the Voigtlanders had not been contemplating a full replacement of the fence. The Voigtlanders were compelled to act when an automobile crashed onto their property, taking out a large section of fence. (Photographs attached.) Had that not happened, the Voigtlanders would not have replaced the fence.
Contrary to what is stated in one red-dot letter, the fence as currently constructed is actually at or below the height of the original fence for its entire length. This is shown in the measurements submitted with the Voigtlanders’ application. Additional visual evidence is attached. Also, though it has metal construction, the fence is designed to have the same look and feel as the original, including the lattice to allow the passage of air and light. The overall visual impact is greatly improved with the unruly and overgrown vines now removed. Nevertheless, the Voigtlanders would be happy to plant vegetation in front of the fence to further soften its appearance.
The Voigtlanders have not planted anything in the public right-of-way as stated in another red-dot letter. While the Voigtlanders share Ms. Wilson’s concerns about safety for dog walkers (the Voigtlanders are also dog owners and frequently walk their dog around the neighborhood), safety can be addressed while still granting the variance. Notably, the fence was at its current height or taller for several decades, and there was never any complaint or insinuation that the fence constituted a nuisance. Nor has any accident been caused by the fence height, to our knowledge.
Finally, the entryway has already received a variance, which has not expired. The current entryway is installed within the outline of the original, except that it is set back a few feet from the street so 66 August 25, 2026 Item 14
City of Del Mar Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
that the gate can open outward without encroaching into the right-of-way. In granting a variance for the entryway, the Planning Commission in 1984 recognized the existence of the nonconforming fence and did not state any concern about it. Quite the opposite: the Planning Commission approved a variance for the entryway to complement the fence! The Planning Commission expressly found that “application of Chapter 30 would deprive the applicant of developing the property in a consistent manner.” A copy of the 1984 variance is attached. Nothing about the situation has changed, except that the parking problem has worsened, increasing the need for the fence.
Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter.
Very truly yours,
AANNESTAD ANDELIN & CORN LLP
Lee M. Andelin
cc: Jim Sneed
Christian Voigtlander
Rosee Voigtlander
67 August 25, 2026 Item 14
68 August 25, 2026 Item 14
69 August 25, 2026 Item 14
70 August 25, 2026 Item 14
71 August 25, 2026 Item 14
72 August 25, 2026 Item 14
73 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Walker Parking Consultants (Walker) performed a survey of parking demand and supply in the Del Mar Village area of the City of Del Mar in August of 2013. Two occupancy counts each were conducted on a busy weekday and weekend day, during the lunch and dinner hours.
Length-of-stay data was collected for cars parked in the area as well. Briefly summarizing the findings of the parking survey:
The peak parking occupancy rate for on-street spaces was observed during the Saturday mid-day count, when 83 percent of on-street spaces were occupied.
Although 85 percent to 90 percent represents the parking industry standard for an acceptable level of on-street parking occupancy, we note that is the recommended occupancy rate per block face. 83 percent represented the average occupancy rate recorded for the entire study area. A number of block faces were found to consistently be at 95% to 100% occupancy; there was effectively no available parking along these blocks.
The observed on-street parking utilization during the Saturday mid-day count was comparable to the utilization recorded for the same period in a parking study conducted in January 2012, although off-street parking utilization in the 2012 study was approximately 10 percent higher than the summer observations. Peak occupancy for the survey area overall occurred during the Saturday evening count when 76 percent of on-street and 59 percent of off-street spaces were occupied.
Excluding parking at Del Mar Plaza, just 36 percent of off-street spaces were occupied during the period of peak demand. The low off-street parking occupancy rates demonstrate that, even during the period of highest demand for parking observed in the district, more than 400 off-street parking spaces were unoccupied. 23% of cars parked on Camino del Mar were present for three hours or longer during the period of peak demand despite diligent enforcement efforts.
The survey findings demonstrate that Del Mar Village and the adjacent area do not suffer from a lack of parking spaces overall but rather concentrated areas of high parking occupancy rates in the most convenient spaces. All parkers are competing for the finite number of “most convenient” (typically on-street) spaces. A redistribution of parking demand is necessary to make more spaces available in convenient locations while better utilizing the many unoccupied spaces that exist nearby. When it comes to the most desirable parking spaces, visitors must have priority.
The parking issues facing Del Mar are therefore not an infrastructural problem, but rather the result of parking management issues. The issues regarding parking availability in Del Mar are the result of the policies in place that encourage the current behavior and habits of long-term parkers that we have observed. Changing these policies will improve parking availability; maintaining these policies will result in continued challenges, not only from the perspective of poor level of service to visitors, but traffic congestion in the area as well. Even if additional 74 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
iii
parking spaces could be constructed, they will not result in improvements unless new policies are implemented first.
In order to better manage parking demand in and around Del Mar Village, a portion of the parking demand needs to be redistributed using policies that discourage long-term parking in spaces that should serve visitors and customers while encouraging the use of unoccupied parking spaces off street. We recommend:
The development of an employee parking program to mitigate the impact of employees who park on city streets, particularly in locations where providing parking for visitors is the priority. Elements of this program should include:
- The opening of some private off-street lots (including some belonging to houses of worship) to allow employee and/or public parking in these lots after the close of the business day or when spaces are generally observed to be highly underutilized; - Improving wayfinding to the public parking available at the City Hall lot, and providing clearer signage at the entrance to the lot; and - Incenting employees to park in designated off-street parking areas while discouraging long-term parking in high visitor locations on the street. Increase the turnover of long-term vehicles parked on Camino del Mar by:
- Extending the hours of enforcement of time limited spaces from 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM to discourage restaurant/nighttime employee use of these spots. - Expanding paid parking to the busiest blocks of Camino del Mar. Paid parking has proven to be the only effective method by which to make parking spaces available to customers and visitors. Paid parking is most effective where the demand for parking is highest. The availability of parking is typically more important to paying customers than having to pay a small fee when seeking out a dining or shopping destination.
Improve parking availability for residents by reintroducing residential parking permit programs for residents that are implementable per Coastal Commission regulations.
Policies are necessary that A) are effective in making parking spaces for visitors available on the street and B) make off-street parking spaces available for parkers, particularly employees.
The chronic parking challenges that Del Mar has faced for years are the result of parking behavior that appears to have become ingrained as the result of ineffective policies and the habits they reinforce. The consequences of not implementing both types of policies will result in the perpetuation of the parking issues that the City currently faces and the less than desirable level of service for drivers who visit and wish to park in the area. 75 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
1 CURRENT CONDITIONS
DEL MAR VILLAGE PARKING INVENTORY
Walker Parking Consultants (Walker) performed an inventory (parking supply count) of onstreet and off-street parking spaces in the study area, which is illustrated below in Figure 1.
Blocks were lettered in a manner similar to the format used in the January 2012 study in order to compare the results of this and the previous study; the block lettering and block face numbering in this report vary slightly from the January 2012 study due to differences in the study area and the desire to make the numbering/lettering more clear and consistent.
Walker determined that the number of spaces in the study area totals 1,875± with 691± onstreet (37 percent) and 1,184± off-street (63 percent) spaces. Of the off-street spaces, 140 (12 percent) are publicly owned while the remaining 1,044 (88 percent) are privately owned. The following table summarizes the Downtown Del Mar Parking Inventory. The collected parking inventory information does not include off-street residential parking. 76 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
2 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013
77 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
3 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013
Block A includes the Post Office parking lot, Block B includes the parking lot under the L‟Auberge Hotel which includes permit and metered public parking in addition to some of the hotel‟s employee parking. Block C includes the parking structure for Del Mar Plaza.
Public Private
A (B) 17 47 64
B (C) 14 60 68 142
C (D) 8 340 348
D (E) 34 34
E (F) 25 25
F (G) 80 135 215
G (H) 10 59 69
H (I, J) 18 14 46 78
I (K) 26 9 69 104
J (L) 42 42
K (M, N, O) 42 42
L (P) 43 39 82
M (Q) 17 78 95
N (R) 31 31
O (S, T) 36 36
P (U) 73 50 123
Q (V) 38 24 62
R (X, Y) 22 22
S (Z) 24 57 81
T (AA) 18 89 107
U 22 22
V 16 16
W 10 10
X (W) 12 12
Y (W) 13 13
Total 691 140 1044 1875
Block
(Jan 2012 Block) On-Street Total
Off-Street
78 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
4 DEL MAR VILLAGE AREA PARKING DEMAND
To determine demand for parking in the study area Walker performed occupancy counts on one weekday and one weekend day. Based on discussions with City staff and our experience with coastal destination communities in Southern California, Thursday and Saturday were chosen as the typical busy days to perform the occupancy counts. The occupancy counts were collected during the summer to capture parking occupancy rates during the peak summer season.
Counts were specifically conducted during the racing season to incorporate the impact of racing season on parking demand in the Del Mar Village area. We note that the weather during the counts was warm and sunny, typical of the weather during Del Mar‟s busiest and most popular season.
The actual occupancy counts were performed at 12:30 PM and 6:00 PM on Thursday August 22, 2013 and at 12:30 PM and 7:00 PM on Saturday August 24, 2013. 1 The times of the
occupancy counts were selected to generally match with the mid-day observations in the January 2012 parking study and to capture the evening parking demand peak.
Figures 1 – 4, later in the report, contain maps that illustrate parking occupancy rates on a perblock basis for each of the occupancy counts both for on-street and off street parking.
We note that 85 percent to 90 percent per block face (1 to 2 available spaces) represents the parking industry standard for an acceptable level of on-street parking occupancy. Depending on the parking user group, 90 percent (for visitors) to 95 percent represents the typical industry standard for an acceptable level of off-street occupancy.
PEAK PARKING DEMAND
Peak occupancy occurred during the Saturday evening count when 1,222± vehicles were parked in the study area. During this period, overall 76 percent of on-street and 59 percent of off-street spaces were occupied. However, excluding parking at Del Mar Plaza, which exceeded 100% of its „regular‟ capacity due to valet operations on Saturday evening, 36 percent of off-street spaces were occupied. Table 2 on the following page illustrates weekday occupancy by block in the study area. We note that the peak parking occupancy rate for on-street spaces was observed during the Saturday mid-day (lunchtime) count when 83 percent of on-street spaces were occupied.
WEEKDAY PARKING DEMAND AND UTILIZATION
Weekday peak occupancy occurred during the mid-day count when 1,148 vehicles were parked in the study area. During this period 77 percent of on-street and 52 percent of offstreet spaces were occupied. The observed on-street parking utilization was comparable to the utilization seen in the January 2012 study.
1 An additional count was performed in the midafternoon on Thursday, but this data was found not to represent peak conditions during the day and to be of limited use. 79 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
5 Mid-day off-street parking utilization in the January 2012 study was approximately 10 percent higher than the current observations. This difference is due largely to higher observed occupancy in Del Mar Plaza in the January 2012 study. City staff noted that at the time of the August 2013 counts, there were two large vacancies in Del Mar Plaza. Tables 2 and 3 show the observed off-street and on-street demand respectively, including a comparison to the January 2012 results. We note that, not including the Del Mar Plaza parking structure, the occupancy rates for off-street parking are virtually the same for January 2012 and Walker‟s August 2013 parking occupancy counts although results by block in some cases vary significantly.
–
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013, Village Specific Plan (August 2012) Jan 2012 Study
Thursday
12:00pm
Demand Utilization Utilization Demand Utilization
A (B) 47 20 43% 48% 20 43%
B (C) 128 88 69% 20% 82 64%
C (D) 340 190 56% 85% 357 105%*
F (G) 135 63 47% 62% 62 46%
G (H) 59 31 53% 51% 23 39%
H (I, J) 60 11 18% 87% 18 30%
I (K) 78 40 51% 48% 34 44%
L (P) 39 24 62% 97% 13 33%
M (Q) 78 47 60% 51% 28 36%
P (U) 50 35 70% 75% 8 16%
Q (V) 24 17 71% 86% 5 21%
S (Z) 57 24 42% 41% 6 11%
T (AA) 89 29 33% 55% 13 15%
Total 1184 619 52% 63% 669 57%
Total Without Plaza Del Mar 844 429 51% 53% 312 37%
* = Demand in the Plaza Del Mar lot exceeds regular supply in the evening due to valet operations Block
(Jan 2012 Block) Inventory
12:30pm 6:00pm
Walker Collected Data
Thursday August 22, 2013
Walker Collected Data
Thursday August 22, 2013
80 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
6 –
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013, Village Specific Plan (August 2012) Figures 2 illustrates weekday mid-day on-street and off-street parking utilization and Figure 3 illustrates weekday evening on-street and off-street parking utilization.
Jan 2012 Study
Thursday
12:00pm
Demand Utilization Utilization Demand Utilization
A (B) 17 13 76% 63% 14 82%
B (C) 14 14 100% 87% 14 100%
C (D) 8 8 100% 67% 8 100%
D (E) 34 32 94% 83% 31 91%
E (F) 25 23 92% 88% 24 96%
F (G) 80 67 84% 85% 77 96%
G (H) 10 8 80% 91% 10 100%
H (I, J) 18 17 94% 94% 17 94%
I (K) 26 21 81% 66% 19 73%
J (L) 42 28 67% 92% 26 62%
K (M, N, O) 42 39 93% 63% 27 64%
L (P) 43 40 93% 88% 25 58%
M (Q) 17 13 76% 100% 13 76%
N (R) 31 14 45% 50% 10 32%
O (S, T) 36 25 69% 90% 17 47%
P (U) 73 65 89% 72% 41 56%
Q (V) 38 32 84% 91% 30 79%
R (X, Y) 22 7 32% 71% 12 55%
S (Z) 24 14 58% 48% 10 42%
T (AA) 18 10 56% 43% 9 50%
U 22 9 41% NA 7 32%
V 16 6 38% NA 8 50%
W 10 7 70% NA 2 20%
X (W) 12 7 58% 67% 2 17%
Y (W) 13 10 77% NA 10 77%
Total 691 529 77% 76% 463 67%
Block
(Jan 2012 Block) Inventory
12:30pm 6:00pm
Walker Collected Data
Thursday August 22, 2013
Walker Collected Data
Thursday August 22, 2013
81 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
7 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013
82 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
8 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013
83 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
9 SATURDAY PARKING DEMAND AND UTILIZATION
As noted earlier, Saturday peak occupancy occurred during the evening count when 1,222± vehicles were parked in the study area. During this period 76 percent of on-street and 59 percent of off-street spaces were occupied.
The observed on-street parking utilization during the mid-day count was comparable to the utilization seen in the January 2012 study. Mid-day off-street parking utilization in the January 2012 study was approximately 10 percent higher than the current observations. This difference is due largely to higher observed occupancy in Del Mar Plaza in the January 2012 study. City staff noted that at the time of the August 2013 counts, there were two significant vacancies in Del Mar Plaza. Tables 4 and 5 show the observed Saturday off-street and on-street demand respectively, including a comparison with the January 2012 results. –
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013, Village Specific Plan (August 2012) Jan 2012 Study
Saturday
1:00pm
Demand Utilization Utilization Demand Utilization
A (B) 47 19 40% 48% 22 47%
B (C) 128 93 73% 79% 109 85%
C (D) 340 223 66% 85% 386 113%*
F (G) 135 57 42% 47% 66 49%
G (H) 59 20 34% 24% 17 29%
H (I, J) 60 21 35% 26% 21 35%
I (K) 78 24 31% 38% 15 19%
L (P) 39 20 51% 68% 14 36%
M (Q) 78 27 35% 15% 22 28%
P (U) 50 18 36% 27% 6 12%
Q (V) 24 21 88% 62% 6 25%
S (Z) 57 10 18% 45% 3 5%
T (AA) 89 23 26% 36% 7 8%
Total 1184 576 49% 57% 694 59%
Total Without Plaza Del Mar 844 353 42% 44% 308 36%
Saturday August 24, 2013 Saturday August 24, 2013
* = Demand in the Plaza Del Mar lot exceeds regular supply in the evening due to valet operations Inventory
Block 12:30pm 7:00pm
(Jan 2012 Block)
Walker Collected Data Walker Collected Data
84 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
10 –
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013, Village Specific Plan (August 2012) Jan 2012 Study
Saturday
1:00 PM
Demand Utilization Utilization Demand Utilization
A (B) 17 17 100% 38% 17 100%
B (C) 14 14 100% 87% 14 100%
C (D) 8 5 63% 100% 8 100%
D (E) 34 33 97% 94% 33 97%
E (F) 25 24 96% 92% 25 100%
F (G) 80 81 101% 97% 79 99%
G (H) 10 11 110% 73% 9 90%
H (I, J) 18 16 89% 100% 18 100%
I (K) 26 21 81% 72% 25 96%
J (L) 42 28 67% 65% 30 71%
K (M, N, O) 42 43 102% 86% 41 98%
L (P) 43 35 81% 95% 36 84%
M (Q) 17 12 71% 100% 14 82%
N (R) 31 13 42% 50% 8 26%
O (S, T) 36 35 97% 100% 33 92%
P (U) 73 59 81% 93% 38 52%
Q (V) 38 35 92% 89% 28 74%
R (X, Y) 22 21 95% 84% 16 73%
S (Z) 24 19 79% 82% 7 29%
T (AA) 18 8 44% 26% 2 11%
U 22 10 45% NA 17 77%
V 16 16 100% NA 16 100%
W 10 4 40% NA 4 40%
X (W) 12 4 33% 0% 3 25%
Y (W) 13 7 54% NA 7 54%
Total 691 571 83% 83% 528 76%
Walker Collected Data Walker Collected Data
Saturday August 24, 2013 Saturday August 24, 2013
Block
(Jan 2012 Block) Inventory
12:30pm 7:00pm
85 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
11 Figure 4 illustrates Saturday mid-day on-street and off-street parking utilization. Figure 5 illustrates Saturday evening on-street and off-street parking utilization.
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013
86 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
12 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013
87 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
13 TURNOVER
Walker performed license plate inventory (LPI) surveys to examine how long parked vehicles remained in parking spaces, or “parking space „turnover.‟” With LPI we record the last 4 digits of a license plate every hour in order to determine how long a vehicle remains parked. The focus of this portion of the study was on:
locations experiencing high occupancy of 85+ percent during the weekday peak periods and other areas of concern noted in discussions with City staff, as vehicles parked for long periods of time in these locations could negatively impact drivers looking for parking in these locations;
the on-street parking spaces serving the main commercial blocks along Camino del Mar; and
Parking spaces along residential blocks that experienced relatively high parking occupancy rates.
On August 23, 2013, Walker performed hourly turnover counts from 10:30 am to 7:30 am on Camino Del Mar between 12th Street and Del Mar Plaza, on Stratford Court between 12th Street and 15th Street, on 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th Streets between Camino Del Mar and Luneta Drive, on 15th Street between Luneta Drive and Carolina Road and on Luneta Drive between 11th Street and 14th Street. Additional turnover counts were performed along some residential streets in order to record the presence of cars earlier in the morning.
A summary of the results of the fieldwork follows.
Within the LPI area, occupancy peaked at 12:30 PM at 262± parked vehicles, consistent with the weekday mid-day peak hour.
During the 12:30 PM peak, there were 74± cars parked on Camino Del Mar in the LPI area. Of these, 17 (23%) were parked for at least 3 hours in spite of the 2-hour (and occasional 20-minute) time restriction of spaces on Camino Del Mar. Parking enforcement was noted actively chalking parked cars. Walker noted parkers‟ attempts to avoid enforcement of the time restriction, as a few instances of chalk being wiped off tires was observed. A few cars were also observed re-parking in different spaces.
Some cars that were parked beyond the posted time limits had placards for people with disabilities displayed.
In the rest of the LPI study area there were 188± parked cars during the 12:30 PM peak.
Of these, 128 cars (68% of occupied spaces) were occupied by vehicles parked for at least 4 hours. There are few time restricted spaces on the LPI streets other than on Camino Del Mar. However it is worth nothing that the majority of the on-street parking occurring on the side streets consisted of long-term parkers. The percentage of 4+ hour parkers on the side streets among cars parked at 12:30 PM ranged from 58% on Stratford Avenue to 85% on 12th Street.
Table 6 shows the total number of cars parked all day (as opposed to a “snapshot” of the number of cars parked at the peak) observed during the LPI period, and how long they were 88 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
14 parked. Additionally, Table 6 shows the same information broken out for Stratford Avenue, 14th Street and Luneta Drive.
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013
In general, most parking spaces on Camino Del Mar are turning over, although not to the extent that the posted policy suggests. On the side streets where there are no time restrictions, parking spaces are turning over with much less frequency. Based on the observations recorded, parking on the side streets is a mix of employee, resident, beachgoer and downtown visitor parking. There was also a clear occurrence of long-term parkers turning over during the 3:30 and 4:30 observation periods, indicating that many of the 5-7 hour parkers were employees of downtown or Del Mar Plaza businesses.
SAMPLE PARKING TURNOVER IN DETAIL – CAMINO DEL MAR AND STRATFORD COURT The following tables demonstrate in greater detail the extent to which cars parked on Camino del Mar and Stratford Court during the lunch-time peak hour are long-term vehicles.
Table 7 below demonstrates that just over 20 percent of parking spaces (17 cars parked) on Camino del Mar were occupied by cars parked for approximately three hours or more. Six percent of spaces were occupied by cars parked for approximately four hours or more. These spaces, occupied by long-term parkers, are effectively out of service to the general visiting public.
Hours Parked # of Cars % of Total # of Cars % of Total # of Cars % of Total # of Cars % of Total 1 424 47% 8 15% 19 20% 11 18%
2 205 23% 9 17% 23 24% 18 30%
3 98 11% 9 17% 14 15% 3 5%
4 40 4% 2 4% 11 12% 6 10%
5 39 4% 8 15% 10 11% 3 5%
6 23 3% 4 7% 4 4% 2 3%
7 35 4% 6 11% 5 5% 8 13%
8 20 2% 3 6% 6 6% 2 3%
9 5 1% - 0% 1 1% 1 2%
10 22 2% 5 9% 2 2% 6 10%
Total Cars Observed 911 100% 54 100% 95 100% 60 100%
Total Area Stratford 14th Luneta
89 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
15 Table 7: Camino del Mar - Length of Stay During the Peak Hour Table 8 below demonstrates that just over 50 percent of parking spaces (31 cars parked) on Stratford Court were occupied by cars parked for approximately four hours or more. However, unlike Camino del Mar the length of stay on Stratford Court does not necessarily convey whether the vehicle belongs to a resident, employee or business owner. On Stratford Court we observed that a significant number of the cars parked early in the morning were not present in the mid-afternoon and that a significant of those cars present in the mid-afternoon were not parked in the morning. We conclude from these observations that the on-street parking along Stratford Court is used heavily, though by no means exclusively, by employees and business owners.
TYPE INVENTORY 1-2
HOURS 3 HOURS
4 HOURS
OR
LONGER
20MIN 2 2 2 -- -- 0%
2HR 6 6 3 3 -- 0%
20MIN 1 1 1 -- -- 0%
2HR 7 7 2 5 -- 0%
20MIN 1 1 1 -- -- 0%
2HR 13 13 12 1 -- 0%
ADA 1 1 1 -- -- 0%
20MIN 1 -- -- -- -- 0%
2HR 13 12 10 1 1 8%
20MIN 1 1 1 -- -- 0%
2HR 14 13 10 2 1 7%
2HR 8 4 1 0 3 38%
ADA 1 -- -- -- -- 0%
20MIN 4 2 2 -- -- 0%
2HR 9 11 11 -- -- 0%
Total 82 74 57 12 5 6%
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013
CAMINO DEL MAR
14TH ST 15TH ST
EAST
CARS
PARKED AT
12:30 PM
LENGTH OF STAY PERCENT OF
SPACES NOT
AVAILABLE FOR
SHORT-TERM
PARKING
12TH ST 13TH ST
EAST
WEST
13TH ST
13TH ST
14TH ST EAST
CROSSWALK WEST
PLAZA ENT
CROSSWALK WEST
90 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
16 Table 8: Stratford Court - Length of Stay Peak Hour
STREET FROM TO SIDE OF
STREET
TYPE INVENTORY
1-3 HOURS 4-5 HOURS 6 HOURS OR
LONGER
EAST 13 12 1 2 9 69%
WEST 13 13 3 3 7 54%
20MIN 3 2 2 -- -- --
2HR 5 4 4 -- -- --
REG 20 19 9 3 7 35%
WEST 2HR 5 5 5 -- -- --
Total 59 55 24 8 23 53%
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013.
STRATFORD
PERCENT OF
SPACES OCCUPIED
BY LONG-TERM
PARKERS
CARS
PARKED
AT 12:30
PM
LENGTH OF STAY IN HOURS
13TH ST 15TH ST
EAST
12TH ST 13TH ST REG
91 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
17 FINDINGS
The following are highlights of the analysis of the data we collected during our parking surveys and their significance. Overall our findings suggest that even with a number of block faces effectively lacking available parking spaces, significant number of parking spaces were unoccupied on adjacent streets or off-street surface parking lots, which are currently off-limits to most parkers. The findings demonstrate that the use of the current parking policies will result in the continued imbalance in parking demand throughout the district.
ON-STREET
Observed weekday mid-day and Saturday peak parking occupancy rates during the August 2013 counts were very similar to the peak occupancies observed in the January 2012 study. However, the addition of evening counts revealed that Saturday evening represents the overall peak period of parking due to valet parking and the resulting high utilization in the Del Mar Plaza parking structure as well as evening events at the L‟Auberge Hotel. This suggests that cooperation with these two properties with regard to their evening employee parking needs could ease the demand for on-street parking in the evenings. The development of a comprehensive employee parking program for the district is important.
During the Saturday evening peak, 76 percent of on-street and 59 percent of off-street spaces were occupied. During the Saturday midday count, the peak parking occupancy rate for on-street spaces was 83 percent of on-street spaces were occupied. Despite the different parking patterns observed during both periods, the number of unoccupied off-street spaces in each case numbered over 400. These vacant spaces represent an underutilized resource.
Throughout the study area on-street parking between 13th Street and 15th Street was observed to be more heavily utilized during all observation periods than on-street parking spaces south of 13th Street. Parking demand on Camino del Mar was illustrative of this phenomenon. For most of our surveys, on-street parking spaces along Camino del Mar north of 13th Street experienced occupancies above 90% and in some cases nearly 100%. Meanwhile on-street spaces along Camino del Mar south of 13th Street tended to experience occupancy rates well below 90% overall. The availability of onand off-street parking spaces in the study area south of 13th Street, particularly on weekends represents parking spaces to which parking demand could be redistributed. The Del Mar Village Association-sponsored valet program on the west side of Camino Del Mar just south of 15th Street does not appear to be highly utilized. At 7:30 PM on the Friday of the license plate inventory there were just four vehicles parked in the designated valet lot. The low utilization number suggests that the valet program should be reassessed. Parking spaces currently made available to the valet program may be more useful if opened to general public parking for visitors and perhaps employees. 92 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
18 OFF-STREET PARKING
Off-street parking was generally underutilized with the exception of the L‟Auberge employee lot, the metered and public parking under the L‟Auberge, and the Del Mar Plaza parking structure. The underutilization of private off-street parking (not including Del Mar Plaza) was especially pronounced on the weekend, however at any given time during our surveys there were at least 400 unoccupied off-street parking spaces in the district overall.
The Del Mar Plaza parking structure was observed to be only 60%-70% full during the mid-day periods, but was effectively at 100% capacity during the evenings with valet operations. While Plaza employees were observed parking on Camino Del Mar, on 15th Street west of Luneta Drive and on Zuni Drive, visitors and beachgoers were observed parking at the Plaza and then heading elsewhere.
While a portion of the City Hall lot is free public parking, it is still underutilized. This may be partially due to conflicting and inconsistent signage at the entrance to the upper level of the City Hall lot, as well as a lack of wayfinding signage to guide people to the parking lot. A family was observed during our counts parking at the public meters under the L‟Auberge and dining at Café Secret on Camino Del Mar between 12th Street and 11th Street. Free parking at the City Hall lot would have been a closer parking option and an acceptable walking distance.
LENGTH OF STAY AND PARKING TURNOVER
Our surveys suggested that, on residential streets where the demand for parking was high, parkers were made up of a mix of parking user groups including residents, employees, and visitors.
Based on our LPI observations and analysis on Stratford Avenue between 13th and 15th Streets, we conservatively estimate that 25 percent of the spaces not subject to time restrictions are occupied by residents during the 12:30 pm peak hour. Of the remaining vehicles we project that approximately half belonged to employees of downtown businesses due to observed lengths of stay of four hours or more. Based on the LPI observations of 15th Street east of Luneta Drive, there is a clear mix of residents and Plaza employees parking on the street. Demand for parking on the block peaked at a consistent 15 to 16 cars in the second half of the day, from 3:30 pm to 7:30 pm. We project that approximately half of those parked cars belonged to employees and one quarter belonged to residents.
Ample, available parking on Luneta Drive was observed between 11th Street and 14th Street throughout the day. However a significant portion of the parked cars were observed to belong either to downtown business employees or residents, which we estimate represented 15 and 10 of the cars parked respectively during the peak demand period. During the 12:30 pm peak hour a total of 34 total cars were observed parked from 11th to 14th Street.
93 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
19 Several cars parked on-street on Luneta Drive throughout the LPI were later observed parked in residential driveways on Luneta Drive.
The parking lot at Bruegger‟s Bagels/Starbucks did not turn over as often as expected; we estimate that most cars were parked far longer than the 20 – 30 minute length of stay that we would expect at that location. Most customers were observed parking above the site at the metered church lot or at the bank parking stalls after hours. Other customers for this location were observed walking from the Del Mar Plaza parking garage. While we did not specifically perform a length of stay survey, we suspect that some long-term parking may be taking place in this lot, perhaps including some employees of the businesses.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The parking system serving Del Mar Village and adjacent areas does not suffer from a lack of parking spaces overall but instead is in need of a redistribution of parking demand in order to better utilize underutilized (generally unoccupied) spaces. Indeed, even if more parking spaces were added to the parking system, an improvement in the availability of visitor parking is extremely unlikely; competition for - and the lack of availability of - the most convenient spaces for visitors would persist.
The parking issues facing Del Mar are not an infrastructural problem, but rather operational, parking management and policy issues. These issues result in part from the behavior of longterm parkers, typically those who work in the area. All policies, or lack thereof, encourage a behavioral response. The issues regarding parking availability in Del Mar are, to a significant extent, related to policies in place that encourage the parking behavior and habits that we have observed. Changing these policies will improve parking availability; maintaining these policies will result in continued challenges.
Finally, it is worth noting that the demand patterns for the parking system observed during the peak summer months were generally consistent with those observed during busy days in the winter.
In order to better manage parking demand in and around Del Mar Village, the demand for parking needs to be redistributed. In order to do so, we recommend that the City pursue the following measures:
Develop an employee parking program to mitigate the impact of employee parking on city streets, particularly in locations where providing parking for visitors is a priority.
Several of the following recommendations would be elements of this program, both to better utilize some off-street parking spaces for employees and discourage the use of visitor parking spaces by employees.
Open up privately owned off-street lots (including those belonging to houses of worship) to allow employee and/or public parking in these lots after the close of the business day or when spaces are generally observed to be highly underutilized. 94 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
20 Incentives for property owners are a useful tool for facilitating such a policy. Making existing, underutilized parking spaces more widely available is far more cost effective than building new parking spaces and is more likely to provide parking in locations that are convenient to parkers‟ destinations.
Due to the low utilization of the existing valet program, make the lot currently used to park valet cars in the evening available for general public parking. Increase turnover on Camino del Mar by extending the hours of enforcement of time limited spaces from 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM to discourage restaurant/nighttime employee use of these spots at the beginning of their shifts. With the current ending of the 2-Hour time limit restriction at 6:00 PM, employees can safely park on Camino Del Mar after 3:30 PM and not move their car until their shift ends, taking up valuable restaurant parking for customers.
Improve wayfinding to the public parking available at the City Hall lot, and provide clearer signage at the entrance to the lot.
Reintroduce parking permit programs for residents. We note that based on our research and observations, residential parking programs that exist in other California coastal cities exist in tandem with paid parking and may not be implementable for parking spaces solely regulated by time restrictions.
Given the extent to which regulating on-street parking is limited, create a policy to incent employees to park in designated off-street parking areas including rewards for employees who are observed to park in these areas.
Expand paid parking to Camino del Mar, north of 13th Street. Paid parking has proven to be the only effective method by which to make parking spaces available to customers and visitors. The City currently has paid parking infrastructure and operations in place in other locations. Some of these paid parking spaces are located where parking demand is lower than on Camino del Mar (such as in the lot off Maiden Lane, just south of 15th Street). Paid parking is most effective where the demand for parking is highest.
Customers prefer a paid, available space to a free space that they have trouble finding and which requires a significant walk.
The parking system which serves Del Mar Village and the adjacent area is a combination of on-street and off-street, publicly- and privately-owned parking spaces. Together the parking spaces represent a comprehensive parking system; policies that impact one type of space tend to impact others. The lack of availability of on-street, visitor parking is the greatest challenge facing the parking system concomitant with the challenge of increasing utilization of restricted off-street parking spaces.
Policies are necessary that A) are effective in turning over parking spaces for visitors on the street and B) make off-street parking spaces as convenient for parkers, particularly employees, as possible. The consequences of not implementing both types of policies will result in the perpetuation of the parking issues that the City currently faces. 95 August 25, 2026 Item 14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X X X X
X
(N) POOL
(N) PATIO
EL: 152.0'
(N) POOL EQ.
ENCLOSURE
(E) TRASH
(N) SPA
6x10
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X X X X
X
(N) POOL
(N) PATIO
EL: 152.0'
(N) POOL EQ.
ENCLOSURE
(E) TRASH
(N) SPA
6x10
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X X X X
X
(N) POOL
(N) PATIO
EL: 152.0'
(N) POOL EQ.
ENCLOSURE
(E) TRASH
(N) SPA
6x10 LUNETA DRIVE
60'
6'-2" 15'
5'
25'-4"
REMOVE EXISTING POOL
4'
15'-6"
4'-6"
20'
FRONT YARD
SETBACK
PROPOSED 5' HIGH MASONRY POOL
EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE WITH
ABSORBER SOUND BLANKET BY
ACOUSTICAL SOLUTIONS #AQFA-10EXT,
SEE SHT. L 1.3
EXISTING TRASH RECEPTACLE
LOCATION TO REMAIN
EXISTING
FENCE, TYP.
TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN,
REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE IN-KIND
EXISTING
ARBOR TO
REMAIN,
REPAIR
AND/OR
REPLACE
IN-KIND PER
VARIANCE
V-84-9, DATED
11/13/84.
EXISTING ARBOR TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING GATES TO REMAIN, REPAIR,
RE-HINGE FOR POOL SAFE SWING IN
EXISTING SITE WALL TO REMAIN,
REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE IN-KIND
EXISTING SITE WALL TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
EXISTING FENCE, TYP. TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
EXISTING SITE WALL TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
EXISTING FENCE, TYP. TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
EXISTING SITE WALL TO REMAIN,
REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE IN-KIND
LINE OF WALK-OUT BASEMENT
LINE OF FIRST FLOOR BELOW
EXISTING SITE WALL TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
EXISTING GATE TO REMAIN,
REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE IN-KIND,
RE-HINGE FOR POOL SAFE SWING IN
EXISTING
GATES TO
REMAIN,
REPAIR
AND/OR
REPLACE
IN-KIND,
POOL SAFE
EXISTING
SITE WALL
TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
AND/OR
REPLACE
IN-KIND
EXISTING SITE WALL TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
EXISTING SLIDING GATE TO REMAIN, REPAIR,
POOL SAFE
EXISTING DECKING TO REMAIN,
REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE IN-KIND
EXISTING SITE WALL TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
EXISTING WOOD STAIRS AND
HANDRAILS TO BE REPAIRED
EXISTING SITE WALL TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
PROPOSED IN-GRADE POOL W/COVER,
(PERMIT BY OTHERS)
SOLAR HEATING TO BE INSTALLED PER
ENERGY CONSERVATION
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED SPA, RAISED 18" HT.
EXISTING
SITE WALL
TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
AND/OR
REPLACE
IN-KIND
EXISTING
FENCE, TYP.
TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
EXISTING WALKWAY TO REMAIN
AND BE RESURFACED WITH STONE
EXISTING TENNIS COURT & PAVING TO
BE REMOVED
(E) ASPHALT
PARKING
REPLACE
(E) BRICK
PATIO
REMOVE
(E) TENNIS
COURT
REMOVE
(E) CONCRETE
DRIVEWAY
REPLACE
(N) LAWN
(N) LAWN
(E) WOOD
DECK
(E) POOL
REMOVE
(N) PROPOSED
PLANTING
(E) PLT
(E) PLT
(E) BRICK WALKWAY/REPLACE W/STONE
(E) PLT
(E) LAWN
REPLACE
WITH PLANTS
(E) LAWN
REPLACE
WITH PLANTS
(E) 3-STORY HOUSE
(E) PLT
(E) PLT
(E) PLT
(E) PLT
(E) PLT
(E) PLT
(E) PLT
(E) PLT
(E) PLT
(E) PLT (E) PLT
(E) PLT
(E) PLT
(E) GARAGE
W/ GARDEN ROOM
ABOVE
REMOVE EXISTING DECKING
(N) PLT
(N) PLT
(E) BRICK WALKWAY/REPLACE W/STONE (E) BRICK WALKWAY/REPLACE W/STONE (N) PAVING,
STONE
(N) PAVING, STONE (N) PAVING, STONE
(N) PAVING,
STONE
(E) PLANTER
WALL
REMOVED
(E) PLANTER
WALL
REMOVED
(E) PLANTER
WALL
REMOVED
(E) PLANTER
WALL
REMOVED
EXISTING
GATE TO
REMAIN,
REPAIR
AND/OR
REPLACE
IN-KIND,
RE-HINGE FOR
POOL SAFE
SWING IN
6'
10'
10'
6'
27'-1"
12'-10" 11'
29'
PROPOSED GAS FIREPLACE
MAX. 48 S.F., W/ CHIMNEY NOT TO
EXCEED 6' HT.,
SEE DETAIL ELEVATION
(N) PLT
A
L1.2
4'
12'
10'
SIDE YARD
SETBACK
25'
REAR YARD
SETBACK
(E) PLT
5'-3"
5'-2"
EXISTING DECKING TO
REMAIN, REPAIR
4'-6"
PROPOSED AREA OF
IMPROVEMENT
PROPOSED IN-GRADE AUTOMATIC
POOL COVER
SEE LAND CONSERVATION PERMIT
EXHIBIT, SHEET A-1.1
FS 152.0 + FS 152.0 +
FS 152.0 +
FS 153.5 +
(E)TW 155.0 +
(E)TW 155.0 +
(N) D.G.
AREA
PROPOSED D.G. AREA
6'-5"
B
L1.3
C
L1.3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X
X X
L 1.1LANDSCAPE PLAN
SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"
SHEET 1 OF 4VOIGTLANDER RESIDENCE
DRAWN
PROJECT #
FALA355 14TH STREET, DEL MAR, CA 92014
22.39 ORIGINAL DATE: 01/13/23
PLOT DATE: 2/7/23
REV. DATE: CALIFORNIA LICENCE 3344 2220 OTAY LAKES RD STE 502 #748,CHULA VISTA, CA 91915 TEL: 858-910-3576, EMAIL: [email protected]
N S
*S
E
E C L I
C
O F
T E A T
Date
C A L
Renewal Date * N I A
R O I F
H I
T T C
E
L D
N S A D C A
A R
P E
Signature
2/28/2024
02/06/2023
“LANDSCAPING FOR THE PROJECT SHALL BE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY’S WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND
WITH THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WATER
EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE (DMMC CHAPTER 23.60).”
“I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE WATER
EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND APPLIED THEM FOR THE
EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLAN”
SIGNATURE DATE
02/06/2023
02/06/23
NORTH
0 16 feet
1/8" = 1'-0"
8 24 32
1" ACTUAL IF THIS DOES NOT MEASURE 1" ACTUAL, THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AND ALL LABELED SCALES ARE INCORRECT.
PAVING CALCULATION
EXISTING IMPERVEOUS PAVING: 8,234 SQ.FT.
PROPOSED IMPERVOUS PAVING: 3,949 SQ.FT.
NET CHANGE: 4,285 SQ.FT. DECREASE APN: 300-020-18-00
LANDSCAPE CALCULATION
EXISTING LANDSCAPE: 3,454 SQ.FT. 20%
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE: 6,291 SQ.FT. 37%
NET CHANGE: 2,837 SQ.FT. INCREASE
03 PAVING
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY
PROPOSED STONE PAVING (IMPERVIOUS) 3,938 SF
PROPOSED DECKING (PERVIOUS) 1,004 SF
PROPOSED D.G. (PERVIOUS) 880 SF
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS PAVING 8,234 SF
EXISTING PERVIOUS PAVING 990 SF
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS PAVING TO BE REMOVED 5,784 SF
EXISTING LANDSCAPE 3,354 SF
09 OTHER
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA 6,291 SF
PAVING-IMPERVIOUS 3,949 SF
PAVING-PERVIOUS 1,884 SF
POOL/SPA AREA 960 SF
LOT AREA 17,187 SF
BUILDING FOOTPRINT 3,352 SF
REFERENCE NOTES SCHEDULE
EXISTING PERVEOUS PAVING: 990 SQ.FT.
PROPOSED PERVOUS PAVING: 1,884 SQ.FT.
NET CHANGE: 894 SQ.FT. INCREASE
EXISTING PAVING PLAN - NO SCALE
PROJECT SCOPE:
(1) NEW AT-GRADE POOL AT EXISTING TENNIS COURT (NO SITE GRADING) (EXISTING POOL TO BE REMOVED/FILLED IN AND NEW LANDSCAPE ADDED). (2) POOL EQUIPMENT IN NEW ENCLOSURE, 5-FOOT HIGH WALLS WITH SOUND BLANKET. (3) NEW PRE-FABRICATED SPA AT NORTH DECK.
(4) NEW GAS FIREPLACE WITH 6-FOOT HIGH CHIMNEY AND 12-INCH HIGH SEAT WALLS, TOTAL AREA 4' X 12'
(5) REMOVE AND RELOCATE DECK STAIRS APPROXIMATELY 3-FEET TO THE SOUTH. (6) NEW LANDSCAPE LIGHTING.
CITY OF DEL MAR
Application Date:
Notice Date:
End of Appeal Date:
Approved: ADR23-003 2/23/20233/9/2023 3/31/2023
96 August 25, 2026 Item 14
97 August 25, 2026 Item 14
98 August 25, 2026 Item 14
Comparative
Analysis of
Fences at 355
14th Street
Examining side by side
99 August 25, 2026 Item 14
14th Street
100 August 25, 2026 Item 14
Luneta
The elevations of the old building are identical to the new ones.
You could not see the building; the fence was significantly taller. 101 August 25, 2026 Item 14
The prior entry gate was non-conforming in its width. The new entry gate utilizes the same stairs and is therefore of the same width. The arbor (under variance 84-9) is taller than the new entry structure. 102 August 25, 2026 Item 14
Luneta/14th Street corner
103 August 25, 2026 Item 14
Alley
104 August 25, 2026 Item 14
Old fence went significantly higher
as seen in this pictures.
105 August 25, 2026 Item 14
April 10th accident against fence
View from inside of the property
106 August 25, 2026 Item 14
View from the the outside - Luneta
107 August 25, 2026 Item 14
108 August 25, 2026 Item 14
109 August 25, 2026 Item 14
110 August 25, 2026 Item 14
ITEM 1
111 August 25, 2026 Item 14
112 August 25, 2026 Item 14
113 August 25, 2026 Item 14
114 August 25, 2026 Item 14
Neighbor Opposition to Variance Request V25-002 – 355 14th Street Dear Members of the Del Mar Planning Commission,
We write on behalf of concerned Del Mar Neighbors to respectfully urge the Planning Commission to deny Variance Request V25-002 for the property located at 355 14th Street, concerning fencing and entryway structures along 14th Street and Luneta Drive.
The applicants are requesting multiple variances from the Del Mar Municipal Code, including:
• A variance from DMMC Section 30.86.090(A)(1) to allow the retention of fencing and gates up to 8 feet in height at the front and street-side property lines, where the maximum permitted height is 3.5 feet;
• A variance from DMMC Section 30.86.090(A)(2) to allow the retention of fencing and gates up to 8 feet in height within the rear yard setback, where the maximum permitted height is 6 feet; and
• A variance from DMMC Section 30.86.090(A)(4) to allow the retention of an entryway structure exceeding the dimensions allowed within the front yard setback.
We believe approval of these variances would be inconsistent with both the intent of the Municipal Code and the established character of the surrounding neighborhood.
First, no other property in the hills of Del Mar has a 6- to 8-foot-high metal fence placed directly on the property line, particularly along front or street-side yards. Granting this variance would establish a precedent wholly out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood and contrary to long-standing community standards.
Second, the existing fence is an enormous, stark metal structure that visually resembles fencing more appropriate to an industrial or commercial setting, not a quaint residential neighborhood such as Del Mar. Its height, materiality, and massing are jarring and out of character with the community’s coastal, open, and landscaped aesthetic.
Third, if every home along 14th Street or Luneta Drive were to install similar fencing on the property line, pedestrians would effectively be walking through a corridor or tunnel of metal walls. This would dramatically degrade the public realm, eliminate visual openness, and fundamentally destroy the character of the neighborhood that the zoning code is intended to protect.
Finally, it is not valid to argue that the proposed fence should be allowed simply because a prior fence existed. While a prior fence may have been present, it bore little resemblance to the current structure. The previous fence visually functioned more like a well-manicured hedge, with a substantially lower solid portion and a more transparent upper element. In contrast, the current fence has a much taller and more dominant solid metal component, making it significantly 115 August 25, 2026 Item 14
116 August 25, 2026 Item 14
117 August 25, 2026 Item 14
__________________________________________________________________ 118 August 25, 2026 Item 14
EXHIBIT 1: Luneta Drive - Original vs Current Fence
Original fence
looked like a
hedge with a
small solid
wood portion at
the bottom
Current fence
looks like a
stark 6 to 8ft
metal wall
119 August 25, 2026 Item 14
EXHIBIT 2: 14th Street - Original vs Current Fence
Original fence
looked like a
hedge with a
small solid
wood portion at
the bottom.
Note the ratio of
lattice-to-solid
in the fence
Current fence
looks like a
stark 6 to 8ft
metal wall.
Note that there
is much more
solid metal than
lattice in the
fence.
120 August 25, 2026 Item 14
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2026 12:59 PM
To: Planning Mail Box
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Karen Brindley; Amanda Lee; Jean Crutchfield
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting - Item 1 - Variance V25-002 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 Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to support the staff recommendation to deny Variance Request V25-002. In general, I do not support any variance unless it improves public safety, and that is not the case here.
As the applicant states, the area is extremely busy because many Del Mar Plaza employees and customers park on these streets. Busy intersections require greater visibility.
Additionally, the area lacks sidewalks, forcing pedestrians to walk in the street, where the only “safe harbor” is to step between parked cars. I have experienced this situation many times while walking with my dogs to the plaza.
For many years, the sightlines at both corners and along the driveways at this property have been obstructed. As noted in the staff report, the applicant has reconstructed the significantly over-height perimeter wall without prior approval and is now seeking a variance to retain those improvements.
Granting this variance would normalize a build-first, seek-permission-later approach, and the tall walls would continue to compromise public safety.
Cities have sightline ordinances because blocked visibility is a well-documented contributor to preventable accidents.
In fact, Del Mar has many regulations requiring clear lines of sight at intersections, driveways, and pedestrian walkways:
30.86.150 - Street Corner Sight Distance
No structure, plant material, or other object shall be erected, placed, planted, or allowed to grow within 20 feet of the intersection of arterial streets or arterial-collector streets, as measured from the center of the nearest curb return or, where there is no curb, from the edge of pavement, in such a manner as to materially obstruct or impede vision from passing automobiles.
https://library.municode.com/ca/del_mar/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT30ZO_CH30.8 6SURE_30.86.150STCOSIDI
ITEM 1
121 August 25, 2026 Item 14
23.08.074 - Regulatory Conclusions—Traffic, Parking and Pedestrian Circulation. (G) The proposed development provides inadequate sight distances for motorists and pedestrians entering or exiting the property.
(H) The proposed development interferes with off-site circulation safety or efficiency. https://library.municode.com/ca/del_mar/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT23BUCO_CH2
3.08DERE_23.08.074RECORAPAPECI
30.92.040 – Development Standards
(B)(5)(e) … Any vegetation proposed to be planted adjacent to a driveway shall be selected and located so as to maintain adequate sight lines to and from the property, and along the property frontage to the public street(s) and intersection(s). https://library.municode.com/ca/del_mar/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT30ZO_CH30.9 2HOELIMOVZO_30.92.040DEST
The staff report also notes that a new hedge has been planted along the street-facing walls and is “expected to grow denser and higher over time”. This new hedge, when fully grown, will further block sightlines, and if planted in the public right-of-way, it requires an encroachment permit. Any vegetation obstructing the specified pedestrian 5-foot “safe harbor” in the public right-of-way is prohibited.
23.28.040 – Prohibited Encroachments
4. Any Encroachment would create a trip hazard or other impediment that would interfere with safe pedestrian passage; and
5. Any Encroachment that would create an unsafe line of sight for pedestrians or motorists. https://library.municode.com/ca/del_mar/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT23BUCO_CH23.2 8ENPE_23.28.040PREN
110 Private Encroachments into the City Rights-of-Way
1.c) Interfering with or not accommodating safe pedestrian passage (retention/provision of a continuous, minimum five-foot-wide “safe harbor” along the edge of the paved roadway is the standard applied by the City)
https://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1956/110-Private-Encroachments-IntoCity-Rights-of-Way-PDF
Finding D(4) Would authorize or legalize the maintenance of any private or public nuisance. Approving this variance would allow excessively tall perimeter walls to continue obstructing sightlines, raising concerns under Finding D(4) because those blockages may constitute a public nuisance.
Del Mar’s regulations consistently emphasize preserving sightlines and visibility at street edges to ensure safe passage for pedestrians, and they serve a clear purpose.
Approving this variance would be inconsistent with their intent and would introduce foreseeable risk to public safety.
Thank you for your time and effort on this important public safety issue.
Janet Wilson
122 August 25, 2026 Item 14
Hoska Dr.
123 August 25, 2026 Item 14
From: Mulloy, Richard <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2026 1:55 PM
To: Jean Crutchfield; Planning Mail Box; [email protected] Subject: Variance V25-002; 355 14Th Street
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 Members of the Del Mar Planning Commission:
I am writing in support of the fence variance application for 355 14th Street. My wife and I live at 345 14th Street, which is next door to the property.
We have followed the Voigtlander remodeling project closely over the past 6 years. To say that they have invested substantial time, effort and resources into the modernization of their home is a massive understatement. Whereas the prior house, fence and yard were run-down and a refuge for rodents and other pests, the new, remodeled home enhances the neighborhood and our 14th Street community.
As far as the fence is concerned, it has been there for as long as we have owned our property. The recently replaced fence is much nicer than the prior fence, which was propped up by dilapidated wooden beams and bougainvillea plants that were not maintained and only further contributed to the rodent problem. We cannot see any difference in the height of the fence even though we have a reference point as a result of the connection between the Voigtlanders’ 14th Street fence and the backyard fence that separates our two properties. In addition, requiring any additional work on the fence at this point will be disruptive to us and other neighbors on 14th Street.
We hope that you will consider supporting the Voigtlanders’ request to maintain what has always been there.
If you can please confirm receipt of this correspondence, we would appreciate it. Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Rick and Andrea Mulloy
345 14th Street
(619) 743-4787
The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, ITEM 1
124 August 25, 2026 Item 14
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to [email protected]. Thank you. 125 August 25, 2026 Item 14
ATTACHMENT D
126 August 25, 2026 Item 14
STAFF PHOTOS, FEBRUARY 2026
127 August 25, 2026 Item 14
STAFF PHOTOS, JUNE 2026
128 August 25, 2026 Item 14
L U N E T A D R I V E A L L E Y 20'-0" F.Y.S.B. 2 A-2.0 3 A-2.0 5 A-2.0 4 A-2.0 CL REPLACE FENCE PER 1A-2.0 1 4 T H S T R E E T CL CL C CL L CL REPLACE FENCE PER NEW MAN GATE REPLACE MAN GATE 2 A-2.0 1A-2.0 APPROXIMATE FOOTPRINT OF OLD PERGOLA REPLACE FENCE PER 5 A-2.0 REPLACE MAN GATE REPLACE FENCE PER 4 A-2.0 ~11'-8", V.I.F.
(3540 mm) ~5'-10" (1770 mm) REPLACE FENCE PER 3 A-2.0 (N) ~23'-2" (7040 mm) EXISTING GATE TO REMAIN EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN (E) GARAGE & GUEST HOUSE EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN (N) ~23'-3" (7078 mm) (N) ~18'-0"
(5500 mm)
(N) ~105'-3"
(32060 mm) (N) ~148'-0" (44835 mm) (E) HOUSE(E) ADU
10'-0"
S.S.Y.S.B.
7'-6"
S.S.Y.S.B. 25'-0" R.Y.S.B. (E) SPA (E) POOL (E) DRIVEWAY (E) PARKING (E) FIREPLACE (E) EQUIPMENT (E) PATIO REPLACE MAN GATE AND PERGOLA ~8'-3" ~9'-0" 08-20-25 CFS JES 1913 DEL MAR, CA 92014 355 14TH STREET VOIGTLANDER GUEST HOUSE VARIANCE APPLICATION REN. 7/31/2030 No. C 21312 T A OF E S T NR FO L I CA AI D E S C ME A L I J SE N ETE E. SN D T C I RCH A A-1.2 HEIGHT EXHIBIT SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" SITE PLAN 1 HEIGHT KEY 5'-6" TO 6'-4" TALL 6'-0" TO 6'-4" TALL 6'-0" TO 7'-0" TALL 7'-0" TO 7'-6" TALL 6'-7" TO 8'-0" TALL 7'-0" TO 8'-0" TALL ATTACHMENT E 129 August 25, 2026 Item 14
L U N E T A D R I V E A L L E Y 20'-0" F.Y.S.B.
2 A-2.0
3 A-2.0
5 A-2.0
4 A-2.0
CL REPLACE FENCE PER
1A-2.0 1 4 T H S T R E E T
CL
CL
C
CL
L
CL REPLACE FENCE PER NEW MAN GATE REPLACE MAN GATE
2 A-2.0
1A-2.0 APPROXIMATE FOOTPRINT OF OLD PERGOLA REPLACE FENCE PER 5 A-2.0
(N) TF: 169.67', V.I.F. (E) BF: 160.0', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 168.67', V.I.F. (E) BF: 161.0', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 169.0', V.I.F. (E) BF: 162.0', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 169.42', V.I.F. (E) BF: 161.67', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 169.0', V.I.F. (E) BF: 162.0', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 171.13', V.I.F. (E) BF: 164.8', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 170.3', V.I.F. (E) BF: 164.0', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 170.7', V.I.F. (E) BF: 164.4', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 170.0', V.I.F. (E) BF: 163.8', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 169.8', V.I.F. (E) BF: 162.8', V.I.F.(N) TF: 169.8', V.I.F. (E) BF: 163.0', V.I.F. (N) TF: 169.8', V.I.F. (E) BF: 163.3', V.I.F. (N) TF: 169.8', V.I.F. (E) BF: 163.8', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 169.8', V.I.F. (E) BF: 163.5', V.I.F. REPLACE MAN GATE REPLACE FENCE PER 4 A-2.0
~11'-8", V.I.F.
(3540 mm) ~5'-10" (1770 mm)
(N) TF: 169.8', V.I.F. (E) BF: 161.8', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 169.8', V.I.F. (E) BF: 160.8', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 169.8', V.I.F. (E) BF: 160.8', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 160.9', V.I.F. (E) BF: 152.9', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 159.9', V.I.F. (E) BF: 152.9', V.I.F.
(N) TF: 159.9', V.I.F. (E) BF: 151.9', V.I.F. REPLACE FENCE PER 3 A-2.0 (N) ~23'-2" (7040 mm) EXISTING GATE TO REMAIN EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN (E) GARAGE & GUEST HOUSE EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN (N) ~23'-3" (7078 mm) (N) ~18'-0"
(5500 mm)
(N) ~105'-3"
(32060 mm) (N) ~148'-0" (44835 mm) (E) HOUSE(E) ADU
10'-0"
S.S.Y.S.B.
7'-6"
S.S.Y.S.B. 25'-0" R.Y.S.B. (E) SPA (E) POOL (E) DRIVEWAY (E) PARKING (E) FIREPLACE (E) EQUIPMENT (E) PATIO REPLACE MAN GATE AND PERGOLA ~8'-3" ~9'-0" 08-20-25 CFS JES 1913 DEL MAR, CA 92014 355 14TH STREET VOIGTLANDER GUEST HOUSE VARIANCE APPLICATION REN. 7/31/2030 No. C 21312 TA
OF
E
ST
NR
FO
L I CA
AI
D
E
S
C
ME
A
L I
J SE
N
ET
EE E.
SN
D
TC
I
ARCH A-1.0 SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" SITE PLAN
1 APPLICANT: ROSEE & CHRISTIAN VOIGTLANDER SITE ADDRESS: 355 14TH STREET DEL MAR, CA 92014 APN: 300-020-18-00 LOT SIZE: 17,186 S.F. / 0.394 ACRES ZONING: R1-10 SETBACKS: 20' (FRONT) 10' (STREET SIDE) 7.5' (ALLEY) 20' (REAR) EXISTING LAND USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED LAND USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE-V (NOT SPRINKLERED) PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT SCOPE NEW PROPERTY LINE FENCE PER PLAN · NO NEW LOT COVERAGE· NO NEW SQUARE FOOTAGE· NO NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA SHEET INDEX A-1.0 SITE PLAN A-2.0 ELEVATIONS 130 August 25, 2026 Item 14
~6'-7"
(2006 mm)
~8'-0"
(2400 mm)
~8'-0"
(2400 mm)
~7'-0"
(2100 mm)
~8'-0"
(2400 mm)
~7'-6"
(2286 mm) NEW MAN GATE NEW MAN GATE
~7'-0"
(2100 mm) METAL GRILLE, TYP. METAL POST, TYP. PRE-FINISHED PANEL, TYP. PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE FRONT YARD SETBACK REAR YARD SETBACK 25'-0" 20'-0" 2 A-2.0 ~9'-8" (3230 mm) ~148'-0" (44835 mm) ~4'-0" (1240 mm) 5'-6" TO 6'-4" TALL ~7'-0"
(2100 mm)
~6'-0"
(1800 mm)
~5'-6"
(1676 mm)
~6'-4"
(1920 mm)
~6'-0"
(1800 mm) 1A-2.0 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 3 A-2.0 PRE-FINISHED PANEL, TYP. METAL GRILLE, TYP. METAL POST, TYP. MAN GATE ~105'-3" (32060 mm) ~5'-8" (1895 mm) ~7'-0" METAL GATE ROOF PER PLAN APPROXIMATE ELEVATION OF OLD PERGOLA ~6'-4"
(1920 mm) 2 A-2.0
~7'-9"
(2350 mm) PROPERTY LINE FRONT YARD SETBACK 20'-0" METAL GRILLE, TYP. ~23'-3" (7078 mm) ~5'-6"
(1650 mm) ~4'-0" (1220 mm) PRE-FINISHED PANEL, TYP. MAN GATE NOT INCLUDED VARIES
~8'-0" MAX.
VARIES
~2'-0" MAX. METAL GRILLE, TYP. PRE-FINISHED PANEL, TYP. METAL POST, TYP. 08-20-25 CFS JES 1913 DEL MAR, CA 92014 355 14TH STREET VOIGTLANDER GUEST HOUSE VARIANCE APPLICATION REN. 7/31/2030 No. C 21312 T A OF E S T NR FO L I CA AI D E S C ME A L I J SE N ETE E. SN D T C I RCH A A-2.0 ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" REPLACEMENT FENCE (AT 14TH STREET) 1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" REPLACEMENT FENCE (AT LUNETA DRIVE) 2 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" REPLACEMENT FENCE (AT PARKING) 3 6 - TYPICAL SECTION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 131 August 25, 2026 Item 14
355 14th Street
Exhibit 1 of 10
VOIGTLANDER RESIDENCE
& SNEED
ARCHITECTS
BOKAL SITE PHOTO SURVEY KEY
Scale: N.T.S.
1 (E) HOUSE
11 6 1 4 T H S T R E E T A L L E Y(E) GARAGE
L U N E T A D R I V E
8 7
10 2
3 4
5 9
12 13
14 17 18
15 16
ATTACHMENT F
132 August 25, 2026 Item 14
& SNEED
ARCHITECTS
BOKAL SITE PHOTO SURVEY
Scale: N.T.S.
TYPICAL FENCE (NW CORNER)
2 REPLACE MAN GATE
1 355 14th Street
Exhibit 2 of 10
VOIGTLANDER RESIDENCE
133 August 25, 2026 Item 14
& SNEED
ARCHITECTS
BOKAL SITE PHOTO SURVEY
Scale: N.T.S.
MAN GATE @ 14TH STREET (NE CORNER)
TYPICAL FENCE @ 14TH STREET
4 3
355 14th Street
Exhibit 3 of 10
VOIGTLANDER RESIDENCE
134 August 25, 2026 Item 14
& SNEED
ARCHITECTS
BOKAL SITE PHOTO SURVEY
Scale: N.T.S.
TYPICAL FENCE (LUNETA DRIVE)
TYPICAL FENCE @ NE CORNER
6 5
355 14th Street
Exhibit 4 of 10
VOIGTLANDER RESIDENCE
135 August 25, 2026 Item 14
& SNEED
ARCHITECTS
BOKAL SITE PHOTO SURVEY
Scale: N.T.S.
MAN GATE RECESS
MAN GATE @ LUNETA DRIVE
8 7
355 14th Street
Exhibit 5 of 10
VOIGTLANDER RESIDENCE
136 August 25, 2026 Item 14
& SNEED
ARCHITECTS
BOKAL SITE PHOTO SURVEY
Scale: N.T.S.
FENCE @ PARKING STALLS
TYPICAL FENCE @ LUNETA DRIVE
10 9
355 14th Street
Exhibit 6 of 10
VOIGTLANDER RESIDENCE
137 August 25, 2026 Item 14
& SNEED
ARCHITECTS
BOKAL SITE PHOTO SURVEY
Scale: N.T.S.
FENCE @ ALLEY
FENCE AT PARKING STALLS
12 11
355 14th Street
Exhibit 7 of 10
VOIGTLANDER RESIDENCE
138 August 25, 2026 Item 14
& SNEED
ARCHITECTS
BOKAL SITE PHOTO SURVEY
Scale: N.T.S.
EXISTING CAR GATE
EXISTING FENCE @ ALLEY
14 13
355 14th Street
Exhibit 8 of 10
VOIGTLANDER RESIDENCE
139 August 25, 2026 Item 14
& SNEED
ARCHITECTS
BOKAL SITE PHOTO SURVEY
Scale: N.T.S.
EXISTING FENCE @ ALLEY
EXISTING FENCE @ ALLEY
16 15
355 14th Street
Exhibit 9 of 10
VOIGTLANDER RESIDENCE
140 August 25, 2026 Item 14
& SNEED
ARCHITECTS
BOKAL SITE PHOTO SURVEY
Scale: N.T.S.
EXISTING FENCE @ NEIGHBOR
EXISTING FENCE @ NEIGHBOR
18 17
355 14th Street
Exhibit 10 of 10
VOIGTLANDER RESIDENCE
141 August 25, 2026 Item 14
AANNESTAD ANDELIN& CORN LLP
160 CHESTERFIELD DRIVE SUITE 201
CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA CALIFORNIA 92007
www.aac.law (760) 944-9006
Coastal Property Rights, Land Use & Litigation
February 25, 2026
VIA IN-PERSON DELIVERY
Del Mar City Council
c/o Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk 1050 Camino del Mar
Del Mar, California 92014
[email protected]
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Determination to City Council (V25-002) Dear Ms. Krietor:
Please accept this appeal of the Del Mar Planning Commission’s February 10, 2026, decision denying Variance Application No. V25-002 by my clients, Christian and Rosee Voigtlander. A check for the appeal fee is enclosed. The information required by Del Mar Municipal Code section
1.12.020 is set forth below:
Appellant’s full name, address, and phone number
Christian and Rosee Voigtlander, 355 14th Street, Del Mar, California 92014, (858) 705-0495, (650) 863-1604.
Subordinate entity
Del Mar Planning Commission
Date of the determination
February 10, 2026
Determination for which review is sought
Planning Commission decision to deny Variance Application No. V25-002, submitted by Christian and Rosee Voigtlander.
Appellant’s interest in the appealed determination
Christian and Rosee Voigtlander are the applicants and owners of the subject property. 1 November 8, 2022 Item 01 142 August 25, 2026 Item 14
Del Mar City Council
February 25, 2026
Grounds for the appeal with supporting documentation
Please note that we have not received service of the Planning Commission’s resolution or findings supporting its decision. We reserve the right to supplement the information included in this 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.
The Voigtlanders’ variance application seeks to authorize the height of their existing fence. In denying the variance application, the Planning Commission relied on the erroneous statement in the staff report and proposed resolution that there were no unique circumstances that would justify granting a variance. The Voigtlanders identified several unique circumstances:
First, the Voigtlanders’ lot is surrounded by streets on three sides (14th Street, Luneta Drive, and an unnamed alley). On 14th Street and Luneta Drive, and the portion of the alley within the front yard setback, fences along the property line are allowed only to a maximum height of 3.5 feet.
With a 3.5-foot fence on two sides and part of a third side, the majority of the lot would be exposed and lack the privacy expected for a private residence and backyard. Regular lots have just one side with street frontage, allowing 6-ft privacy fences on the other three sides. Even most corner lots can at least have privacy fences on two sides. This lot therefore lacks the privacy of a normal residential lot.
Second, the Voigtlanders’ lot is on an extremely busy corner compared to most residential neighborhoods in the city. The lot is adjacent to a busy commercial district, which includes the Del Mar Plaza, L’Auberge, and numerous business establishments along Camino del Mar.
Notably, 14th Street is the first street to the south of Del Mar Plaza that allows free, public street parking. The businesses at Del Mar Plaza notoriously do not pay for their employees to park in the underground garage, which is expensive, so the employees are forced to park on 14th Street, Luneta Drive, and other surrounding streets. And some patrons of these businesses choose to park on the streets to avoid paying the parking fee. Thus, these streets are heavily trafficked and full of parked cars all day and into the evening, seven days a week. Users often leave litter behind as well.
Photographs of these conditions were provided to the Planning Commission. A parking study, commissioned by the City in 2013, was also provided. Based on the evidence, the need for privacy is greater than for most other lots in the same zone. Notably, variances for fence height have been granted for other heavily trafficked areas, such as properties adjacent to beach access points.
Third, the lot is on a slope, and the existing principal and accessory structures, including the decks and hot tub, were designed and sited assuming the continued existence of the legal nonconforming fence of 6.5–9 feet. Eventually, however, the old and dying vegetation became so intertwined with the fence that it could not be removed without causing further damage to the fence. Unfortunately, a car crashed through the fence near the front gate, forcing the Voigtlanders to do something about the fence. But replacing the nonconforming fence with a conforming fence would destroy the privacy that the site was designed to have. Anyone walking along Luneta Drive or down 14th Street or the alley would be able to look down directly into all the side yards and backyard.
Fourth, the existing pool and hot tub require least a 5-foot fence and locking gate under the 2 November 8, 2022 Item 01 143 August 25, 2026 Item 14
Del Mar City Council
February 25, 2026
municipal code. (More on this below.) A 5-foot fence is prohibited without a variance.
Fifth, because of the existing development on the lot, there is not sufficient space to relocate the fence farther from the property line to gain the additional height allowed under subsection (1) of the fence ordinance.
The Planning Commission also erred in finding that the need for the variance could be avoided by an alternative development plan. Specifically, staff suggested it would be a straightforward matter to relocate the fence closer to the house to allow for more height. On the east side of the lot, facing Luneta Drive, however, there is a sharp drop of approximately three feet from the street grade, with the soil held in place by a retaining wall. The privacy fence must be located at the top of that elevation, close to the street, to prevent pedestrians from falling and injuring themselves. If the fence and entryway were relocated any closer to the house, that area would be an exposed hazard (or else the Voigtlanders would have to install two parallel fences, which would create a very bizarre aesthetic and interfere with the enjoyment of their property. A relocated fence would also leave the Voigtlanders without a front courtyard, an amenity common to Del Mar homes. On the north side, facing 14th Street, pulling the fence closer to the house would effectively eliminate the side yard and require relocation of the permitted hot tub. East of the house, relocating the fence would require a major reconfiguration of existing retaining walls, grading, and improvements in the backyard. Thus, it was unfair for staff to say that this is a problem of the Voigtlanders’ own making and could be avoided by pushing the fences toward the interior of the lot.
The Planning Commission erred in finding that the need for the variance was self-induced. The Voigtlanders did not simply choose to do this project. While the original fence was very old and in need of substantial repair, the Voigtlanders had not been contemplating a full replacement of the fence. The Voigtlanders were compelled to act when an automobile crashed onto their property, taking out a large section of fence. (Photographs of the accident were provided to the Planning Commission.) Had that not happened, the Voigtlanders would not have replaced the fence.
Related to this point, when the Voigtlanders were planning their remodel, they initially considered a full teardown and rebuild. Staff informed them that if they did so, they would have to bring nonconforming structures on the property into compliance, but if they did just a remodel and minor addition, they could repair and replace nonconforming structures in kind. Because they did not want to lose the privacy afforded by the existing fence, the Voigtlanders elected to do a remodel and minor addition.
The Planning Commission erred in finding that the requested variance would allow such a degree of variation as to constitute a rezoning or other amendment to the zoning code, or allow a special privilege. As noted, the original nonconforming fence existed at this location for many decades without complaint. Additionally, a survey was provided to the Planning Commission, and an updated survey is attached hereto, demonstrating numerous other properties in the same zone with fences well above 3.5 feet tall.
Contrary to what was stated it some red-dot letters and public comments, the fence as currently constructed is actually at or below the height of the original fence for its entire length. This was shown in the measurements submitted with the Voigtlanders’ application. Also, though it has metal 3 November 8, 2022 Item 01 144 August 25, 2026 Item 14
Del Mar City Council
February 25, 2026
construction, the fence is designed to have the same look and feel as the original, including the lattice to allow the passage of air and light. The overall visual impact is greatly improved with the unruly and overgrown vines now removed. Nevertheless, the Voigtlanders would be happy to plant vegetation in front of the fence to further soften its appearance, if granted an encroachment permit to plant in the City’s right-of-way.
Despite unsupported statements alleging safety concerns, the fence was at its current height or taller for several decades, as noted, and there was never any complaint or insinuation that the fence was a danger or constituted a nuisance. Nor is there evidence of any accident ever having been caused by the fence height.
Finally, the entryway has already received a variance, which has not expired. The current entryway is installed within the outline of the original, except that it is set back a few feet from the street so that the gate can open outward without encroaching into the right-of-way. In granting a variance for the entryway, the Planning Commission in 1984 recognized the existence of the nonconforming fence and did not state any concern about it. Quite the opposite: the Planning Commission approved a variance for the entryway to complement the fence! The Planning Commission expressly found that “application of Chapter 30 would deprive the applicant of developing the property in a consistent manner.” A copy of the 1984 variance was provided to the Planning Commission. Nothing about the situation has changed, except that the parking problem has worsened, increasing the need for the fence. The Planning Commission erred in not acknowledging the existence of a variance for the entryway and allowing that structure to remain under the existing variance.
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.
Not applicable.
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.
The Planning Commission’s findings are not supported for the reasons explained above under section 1, Factual Error. To avoid unnecessary repetition, that discussion is incorporated here by reference.
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.
The Planning Commission’s absolute denial of the requested variance was based in large part on a miscomprehension of the pool fence requirement in the City of Del Mar. At one point in the hearing, Commissioner Rittenbaum proposed a partial grating of the variance for the portion of the fence along 14th Street west of the house to satisfy safety standards for the existing pool in the backyard. The Planning Director jumped into the discussion to state that a fence is not necessary, and pool safety requirements can be satisfied seven different ways including installation of an 4 November 8, 2022 Item 01 145 August 25, 2026 Item 14
Del Mar City Council
February 25, 2026
automatic pool cover. The Planning Director clearly misstated the standard. The Del Mar Municipal Code requires the following:
To assure public safety, the construction, installation, or maintenance of all swimming pools or outside water bodies shall be subject to the limitations and regulations set forth herein.
A. Fence Required. Every person, firm or corporation in possession of land within the City of Del Mar, California, either as an owner, purchaser under contract, lessee, tenant, or licensee, upon which is situated a swimming pool or outside body of water having a depth of over 12 inches, shall maintain a protective fence, wall, enclosure or other effective barrier as required by the Uniform Building Code around said pool or outside body of water. The height of said fence(s), wall(s), enclosure(s) or other effective barrier shall be not less than five feet as measured on the exterior facade above the finished grate at any point, with no opening therein provided, however, that no such fence or wall shall be erected that affords ladderlike or step-like access. (Del Mar Mun. Code, § 30.86.170.) The Code further provides that this standard “shall apply to existing swimming pools and outside bodies of water. It shall be unlawful to maintain a swimming pool which is not fenced in accordance with the terms of this Chapter.” (Id., § 30.86.170, subd.
D.) In short, all residential pools within the city limits of Del Mar are required to have a fence, wall, or other enclosure at least 5 feet tall. A 3.5-foot fence obviously does not satisfy this requirement.
Significantly, residents in Del Mar have been cited for having a fence less than 5 feet tall around their pool, and variances have been granted to allow fences of at least 5 feet. One example that is both recent and entirely on point is at 785 Kalamath Drive. The staff report detailing the enforcement history and justification for granting the variance, which was ultimately approved by the Planning Commission, is enclosed herewith.
Unfortunately, the Planning Director’s erroneous statement of the legal standard swiftly shut down any further consideration of a partial granting of the variance for pool safety. The Planning Commission’s ultimate vote to deny the application in its entirety thus was heavily swayed by this error.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. The Voigtlanders reserve the right to supplement this appeal with additional information.
Very truly yours,
AANNESTAD ANDELIN & CORN LLP
Lee M. Andelin
5 November 8, 2022 Item 01 146 August 25, 2026 Item 14
Del Mar City Council
February 25, 2026
cc: Christian and Rosee Voigtlander
Jim Sneed
Enclosures
6 November 8, 2022 Item 01 147 August 25, 2026 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
February 9, 2026
VIA EMAIL
City of Del Mar Planning Commission
c/o Jean Crutchfield, Associate Planner
1050 Camino del Mar
Del Mar, California 92014
[email protected]
Re: Agenda Item 1: Voigtlander variance application (V25-002) Dear Chair Posner, Vice Chair Grewal, and Honorable Commissioners:
I write to address certain issues omitted from the staff report on this matter. For the reasons described below and in my letter dated January 20, 2026 (attached to the staff report), findings can be made to support a variance, and the Planning Commission should vote to approve a variance for the Voigtlanders.
First, the staff report is incorrect in stating that there is nothing unique about this property that would justify a variance. Stunningly, the staff report fails to even mention the primary factor presented in support of the Voigtlanders’ application, namely, the extreme traffic and parking around the perimeter of their property. As described in the Voigtlanders’ application, this property is adjacent to a busy commercial district, which includes the Del Mar Plaza, L’Auberge, and numerous business establishments along Camino del Mar. Notably, 14th Street is the first street to the south of Del Mar Plaza that allows free, public street parking. The businesses at Del Mar Plaza notoriously do not pay for their employees to park in the underground garage, so the employees are forced to park on 14th Street, Luneta Drive, and other surrounding streets. And some patrons of these businesses choose to park on the streets to avoid paying the parking fee. Thus, these streets are heavily trafficked and full of parked cars all day and into the evening, seven days a week. Users often leave litter behind as well. Photographs of these conditions are enclosed. See also the attached parking study, commissioned by the City in 2013.
Conditions have only worsened since 2013. The Voigtlanders have no objection to the public’s use of the street, but they cannot enjoy the level of privacy expected for a family home without a fence that exceeds the 3.5 feet allowed by code. This is a special condition, unique to this property, that justifies the granting of a variance, similar to variances that have been granted for other heavily trafficked areas, such as properties adjacent to beach access points. 7 November 8, 2022 Item 01
ATTACHMENT H
148 August 25, 2026 Item 14
City of Del Mar Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
Despite what is suggested in the staff report, it would not be a straightforward matter to relocate the fence closer to the house. On the east side of the lot, facing Luneta Drive, there is a sharp drop of approximately three feet from the street grade, with the soil held in place by a retaining wall.
The privacy fence must be located at the top of that elevation, close to the street, to prevent pedestrians from falling and injuring themselves. If the fence and entryway were relocated any closer to the house, that area would be an exposed hazard. A relocated fence would also leave the Voigtlanders without a front courtyard, an amenity common to Del Mar homes. On the north side, facing 14th Street, pulling the fence closer to the house would effectively eliminate the side yard and require relocation of the permitted hot tub. Thus, it is unfair for staff to say that this is a problem of the Voigtlanders’ own making and could be avoided by pushing the fences toward the interior of the lot.
Related to this point, when the Voigtlanders were planning their remodel, they initially considered a full teardown and rebuild. Staff informed them that if they did so, they would have to bring nonconforming structures on the property into compliance, but if they did just a remodel and minor addition, they could repair and replace nonconforming structures in kind. Because they did not want to lose the privacy afforded by the existing fence, the Voigtlanders elected to do a remodel and minor addition. Consistent with staff’s direction, the plans approved through administrative design review point include callouts stating: “EXISTING SITE WALL TO REMAIN, REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE IN-KIND.” A copy of the relevant page of the approved plans is attached.
The Voigtlanders did not simply choose to do this project. While the original fence was very old and in need of substantial repair, the Voigtlanders had not been contemplating a full replacement of the fence. The Voigtlanders were compelled to act when an automobile crashed onto their property, taking out a large section of fence. (Photographs attached.) Had that not happened, the Voigtlanders would not have replaced the fence.
Contrary to what is stated in one red-dot letter, the fence as currently constructed is actually at or below the height of the original fence for its entire length. This is shown in the measurements submitted with the Voigtlanders’ application. Additional visual evidence is attached. Also, though it has metal construction, the fence is designed to have the same look and feel as the original, including the lattice to allow the passage of air and light. The overall visual impact is greatly improved with the unruly and overgrown vines now removed. Nevertheless, the Voigtlanders would be happy to plant vegetation in front of the fence to further soften its appearance.
The Voigtlanders have not planted anything in the public right-of-way as stated in another red-dot letter. While the Voigtlanders share Ms. Wilson’s concerns about safety for dog walkers (the Voigtlanders are also dog owners and frequently walk their dog around the neighborhood), safety can be addressed while still granting the variance. Notably, the fence was at its current height or taller for several decades, and there was never any complaint or insinuation that the fence constituted a nuisance. Nor has any accident been caused by the fence height, to our knowledge.
Finally, the entryway has already received a variance, which has not expired. The current entryway is installed within the outline of the original, except that it is set back a few feet from the street so 8 November 8, 2022 Item 01 149 August 25, 2026 Item 14
City of Del Mar Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
that the gate can open outward without encroaching into the right-of-way. In granting a variance for the entryway, the Planning Commission in 1984 recognized the existence of the nonconforming fence and did not state any concern about it. Quite the opposite: the Planning Commission approved a variance for the entryway to complement the fence! The Planning Commission expressly found that “application of Chapter 30 would deprive the applicant of developing the property in a consistent manner.” A copy of the 1984 variance is attached. Nothing about the situation has changed, except that the parking problem has worsened, increasing the need for the fence.
Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter.
Very truly yours,
AANNESTAD ANDELIN & CORN LLP
Lee M. Andelin
cc: Jim Sneed
Christian Voigtlander
Rosee Voigtlander
9 November 8, 2022 Item 01 150 August 25, 2026 Item 14
10 November 8, 2022 Item 01 151 August 25, 2026 Item 14 11 November 8, 2022 Item 01 152 August 25, 2026 Item 14 12 November 8, 2022 Item 01 153 August 25, 2026 Item 14 13 November 8, 2022 Item 01 154 August 25, 2026 Item 14 14 November 8, 2022 Item 01 155 August 25, 2026 Item 14 15 November 8, 2022 Item 01 156 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Walker Parking Consultants (Walker) performed a survey of parking demand and supply in the Del Mar Village area of the City of Del Mar in August of 2013. Two occupancy counts each were conducted on a busy weekday and weekend day, during the lunch and dinner hours.
Length-of-stay data was collected for cars parked in the area as well. Briefly summarizing the findings of the parking survey:
The peak parking occupancy rate for on-street spaces was observed during the Saturday mid-day count, when 83 percent of on-street spaces were occupied.
Although 85 percent to 90 percent represents the parking industry standard for an acceptable level of on-street parking occupancy, we note that is the recommended occupancy rate per block face. 83 percent represented the average occupancy rate recorded for the entire study area. A number of block faces were found to consistently be at 95% to 100% occupancy; there was effectively no available parking along these blocks.
The observed on-street parking utilization during the Saturday mid-day count was comparable to the utilization recorded for the same period in a parking study conducted in January 2012, although off-street parking utilization in the 2012 study was approximately 10 percent higher than the summer observations. Peak occupancy for the survey area overall occurred during the Saturday evening count when 76 percent of on-street and 59 percent of off-street spaces were occupied.
Excluding parking at Del Mar Plaza, just 36 percent of off-street spaces were occupied during the period of peak demand. The low off-street parking occupancy rates demonstrate that, even during the period of highest demand for parking observed in the district, more than 400 off-street parking spaces were unoccupied. 23% of cars parked on Camino del Mar were present for three hours or longer during the period of peak demand despite diligent enforcement efforts.
The survey findings demonstrate that Del Mar Village and the adjacent area do not suffer from a lack of parking spaces overall but rather concentrated areas of high parking occupancy rates in the most convenient spaces. All parkers are competing for the finite number of “most convenient” (typically on-street) spaces. A redistribution of parking demand is necessary to make more spaces available in convenient locations while better utilizing the many unoccupied spaces that exist nearby. When it comes to the most desirable parking spaces, visitors must have priority.
The parking issues facing Del Mar are therefore not an infrastructural problem, but rather the result of parking management issues. The issues regarding parking availability in Del Mar are the result of the policies in place that encourage the current behavior and habits of long-term parkers that we have observed. Changing these policies will improve parking availability; maintaining these policies will result in continued challenges, not only from the perspective of poor level of service to visitors, but traffic congestion in the area as well. Even if additional 16 November 8, 2022 Item 01 157 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
iii
parking spaces could be constructed, they will not result in improvements unless new policies are implemented first.
In order to better manage parking demand in and around Del Mar Village, a portion of the parking demand needs to be redistributed using policies that discourage long-term parking in spaces that should serve visitors and customers while encouraging the use of unoccupied parking spaces off street. We recommend:
The development of an employee parking program to mitigate the impact of employees who park on city streets, particularly in locations where providing parking for visitors is the priority. Elements of this program should include:
- The opening of some private off-street lots (including some belonging to houses of worship) to allow employee and/or public parking in these lots after the close of the business day or when spaces are generally observed to be highly underutilized; - Improving wayfinding to the public parking available at the City Hall lot, and providing clearer signage at the entrance to the lot; and - Incenting employees to park in designated off-street parking areas while discouraging long-term parking in high visitor locations on the street. Increase the turnover of long-term vehicles parked on Camino del Mar by:
- Extending the hours of enforcement of time limited spaces from 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM to discourage restaurant/nighttime employee use of these spots. - Expanding paid parking to the busiest blocks of Camino del Mar. Paid parking has proven to be the only effective method by which to make parking spaces available to customers and visitors. Paid parking is most effective where the demand for parking is highest. The availability of parking is typically more important to paying customers than having to pay a small fee when seeking out a dining or shopping destination.
Improve parking availability for residents by reintroducing residential parking permit programs for residents that are implementable per Coastal Commission regulations.
Policies are necessary that A) are effective in making parking spaces for visitors available on the street and B) make off-street parking spaces available for parkers, particularly employees.
The chronic parking challenges that Del Mar has faced for years are the result of parking behavior that appears to have become ingrained as the result of ineffective policies and the habits they reinforce. The consequences of not implementing both types of policies will result in the perpetuation of the parking issues that the City currently faces and the less than desirable level of service for drivers who visit and wish to park in the area. 17 November 8, 2022 Item 01 158 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
1 CURRENT CONDITIONS
DEL MAR VILLAGE PARKING INVENTORY
Walker Parking Consultants (Walker) performed an inventory (parking supply count) of onstreet and off-street parking spaces in the study area, which is illustrated below in Figure 1.
Blocks were lettered in a manner similar to the format used in the January 2012 study in order to compare the results of this and the previous study; the block lettering and block face numbering in this report vary slightly from the January 2012 study due to differences in the study area and the desire to make the numbering/lettering more clear and consistent.
Walker determined that the number of spaces in the study area totals 1,875± with 691± onstreet (37 percent) and 1,184± off-street (63 percent) spaces. Of the off-street spaces, 140 (12 percent) are publicly owned while the remaining 1,044 (88 percent) are privately owned. The following table summarizes the Downtown Del Mar Parking Inventory. The collected parking inventory information does not include off-street residential parking. 18 November 8, 2022 Item 01 159 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
2 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013
19 November 8, 2022 Item 01 160 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
3 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013
Block A includes the Post Office parking lot, Block B includes the parking lot under the L‟Auberge Hotel which includes permit and metered public parking in addition to some of the hotel‟s employee parking. Block C includes the parking structure for Del Mar Plaza.
Public Private
A (B) 17 47 64
B (C) 14 60 68 142
C (D) 8 340 348
D (E) 34 34
E (F) 25 25
F (G) 80 135 215
G (H) 10 59 69
H (I, J) 18 14 46 78
I (K) 26 9 69 104
J (L) 42 42
K (M, N, O) 42 42
L (P) 43 39 82
M (Q) 17 78 95
N (R) 31 31
O (S, T) 36 36
P (U) 73 50 123
Q (V) 38 24 62
R (X, Y) 22 22
S (Z) 24 57 81
T (AA) 18 89 107
U 22 22
V 16 16
W 10 10
X (W) 12 12
Y (W) 13 13
Total 691 140 1044 1875
Block
(Jan 2012 Block) On-Street Total
Off-Street
20 November 8, 2022 Item 01 161 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
4 DEL MAR VILLAGE AREA PARKING DEMAND
To determine demand for parking in the study area Walker performed occupancy counts on one weekday and one weekend day. Based on discussions with City staff and our experience with coastal destination communities in Southern California, Thursday and Saturday were chosen as the typical busy days to perform the occupancy counts. The occupancy counts were collected during the summer to capture parking occupancy rates during the peak summer season.
Counts were specifically conducted during the racing season to incorporate the impact of racing season on parking demand in the Del Mar Village area. We note that the weather during the counts was warm and sunny, typical of the weather during Del Mar‟s busiest and most popular season.
The actual occupancy counts were performed at 12:30 PM and 6:00 PM on Thursday August 22, 2013 and at 12:30 PM and 7:00 PM on Saturday August 24, 2013. 1 The times of the
occupancy counts were selected to generally match with the mid-day observations in the January 2012 parking study and to capture the evening parking demand peak.
Figures 1 – 4, later in the report, contain maps that illustrate parking occupancy rates on a perblock basis for each of the occupancy counts both for on-street and off street parking.
We note that 85 percent to 90 percent per block face (1 to 2 available spaces) represents the parking industry standard for an acceptable level of on-street parking occupancy. Depending on the parking user group, 90 percent (for visitors) to 95 percent represents the typical industry standard for an acceptable level of off-street occupancy.
PEAK PARKING DEMAND
Peak occupancy occurred during the Saturday evening count when 1,222± vehicles were parked in the study area. During this period, overall 76 percent of on-street and 59 percent of off-street spaces were occupied. However, excluding parking at Del Mar Plaza, which exceeded 100% of its „regular‟ capacity due to valet operations on Saturday evening, 36 percent of off-street spaces were occupied. Table 2 on the following page illustrates weekday occupancy by block in the study area. We note that the peak parking occupancy rate for on-street spaces was observed during the Saturday mid-day (lunchtime) count when 83 percent of on-street spaces were occupied.
WEEKDAY PARKING DEMAND AND UTILIZATION
Weekday peak occupancy occurred during the mid-day count when 1,148 vehicles were parked in the study area. During this period 77 percent of on-street and 52 percent of offstreet spaces were occupied. The observed on-street parking utilization was comparable to the utilization seen in the January 2012 study.
1 An additional count was performed in the midafternoon on Thursday, but this data was found not to represent peak conditions during the day and to be of limited use. 21 November 8, 2022 Item 01 162 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
5 Mid-day off-street parking utilization in the January 2012 study was approximately 10 percent higher than the current observations. This difference is due largely to higher observed occupancy in Del Mar Plaza in the January 2012 study. City staff noted that at the time of the August 2013 counts, there were two large vacancies in Del Mar Plaza. Tables 2 and 3 show the observed off-street and on-street demand respectively, including a comparison to the January 2012 results. We note that, not including the Del Mar Plaza parking structure, the occupancy rates for off-street parking are virtually the same for January 2012 and Walker‟s August 2013 parking occupancy counts although results by block in some cases vary significantly.
–
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013, Village Specific Plan (August 2012) Jan 2012 Study
Thursday
12:00pm
Demand Utilization Utilization Demand Utilization
A (B) 47 20 43% 48% 20 43%
B (C) 128 88 69% 20% 82 64%
C (D) 340 190 56% 85% 357 105%*
F (G) 135 63 47% 62% 62 46%
G (H) 59 31 53% 51% 23 39%
H (I, J) 60 11 18% 87% 18 30%
I (K) 78 40 51% 48% 34 44%
L (P) 39 24 62% 97% 13 33%
M (Q) 78 47 60% 51% 28 36%
P (U) 50 35 70% 75% 8 16%
Q (V) 24 17 71% 86% 5 21%
S (Z) 57 24 42% 41% 6 11%
T (AA) 89 29 33% 55% 13 15%
Total 1184 619 52% 63% 669 57%
Total Without Plaza Del Mar 844 429 51% 53% 312 37%
* = Demand in the Plaza Del Mar lot exceeds regular supply in the evening due to valet operations Block
(Jan 2012 Block) Inventory
12:30pm 6:00pm
Walker Collected Data
Thursday August 22, 2013
Walker Collected Data
Thursday August 22, 2013
22 November 8, 2022 Item 01 163 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
6 –
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013, Village Specific Plan (August 2012) Figures 2 illustrates weekday mid-day on-street and off-street parking utilization and Figure 3 illustrates weekday evening on-street and off-street parking utilization.
Jan 2012 Study
Thursday
12:00pm
Demand Utilization Utilization Demand Utilization
A (B) 17 13 76% 63% 14 82%
B (C) 14 14 100% 87% 14 100%
C (D) 8 8 100% 67% 8 100%
D (E) 34 32 94% 83% 31 91%
E (F) 25 23 92% 88% 24 96%
F (G) 80 67 84% 85% 77 96%
G (H) 10 8 80% 91% 10 100%
H (I, J) 18 17 94% 94% 17 94%
I (K) 26 21 81% 66% 19 73%
J (L) 42 28 67% 92% 26 62%
K (M, N, O) 42 39 93% 63% 27 64%
L (P) 43 40 93% 88% 25 58%
M (Q) 17 13 76% 100% 13 76%
N (R) 31 14 45% 50% 10 32%
O (S, T) 36 25 69% 90% 17 47%
P (U) 73 65 89% 72% 41 56%
Q (V) 38 32 84% 91% 30 79%
R (X, Y) 22 7 32% 71% 12 55%
S (Z) 24 14 58% 48% 10 42%
T (AA) 18 10 56% 43% 9 50%
U 22 9 41% NA 7 32%
V 16 6 38% NA 8 50%
W 10 7 70% NA 2 20%
X (W) 12 7 58% 67% 2 17%
Y (W) 13 10 77% NA 10 77%
Total 691 529 77% 76% 463 67%
Block
(Jan 2012 Block) Inventory
12:30pm 6:00pm
Walker Collected Data
Thursday August 22, 2013
Walker Collected Data
Thursday August 22, 2013
23 November 8, 2022 Item 01 164 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
7 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013
24 November 8, 2022 Item 01 165 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
8 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013
25 November 8, 2022 Item 01 166 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
9 SATURDAY PARKING DEMAND AND UTILIZATION
As noted earlier, Saturday peak occupancy occurred during the evening count when 1,222± vehicles were parked in the study area. During this period 76 percent of on-street and 59 percent of off-street spaces were occupied.
The observed on-street parking utilization during the mid-day count was comparable to the utilization seen in the January 2012 study. Mid-day off-street parking utilization in the January 2012 study was approximately 10 percent higher than the current observations. This difference is due largely to higher observed occupancy in Del Mar Plaza in the January 2012 study. City staff noted that at the time of the August 2013 counts, there were two significant vacancies in Del Mar Plaza. Tables 4 and 5 show the observed Saturday off-street and on-street demand respectively, including a comparison with the January 2012 results. –
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013, Village Specific Plan (August 2012) Jan 2012 Study
Saturday
1:00pm
Demand Utilization Utilization Demand Utilization
A (B) 47 19 40% 48% 22 47%
B (C) 128 93 73% 79% 109 85%
C (D) 340 223 66% 85% 386 113%*
F (G) 135 57 42% 47% 66 49%
G (H) 59 20 34% 24% 17 29%
H (I, J) 60 21 35% 26% 21 35%
I (K) 78 24 31% 38% 15 19%
L (P) 39 20 51% 68% 14 36%
M (Q) 78 27 35% 15% 22 28%
P (U) 50 18 36% 27% 6 12%
Q (V) 24 21 88% 62% 6 25%
S (Z) 57 10 18% 45% 3 5%
T (AA) 89 23 26% 36% 7 8%
Total 1184 576 49% 57% 694 59%
Total Without Plaza Del Mar 844 353 42% 44% 308 36%
Saturday August 24, 2013 Saturday August 24, 2013
* = Demand in the Plaza Del Mar lot exceeds regular supply in the evening due to valet operations Inventory
Block 12:30pm 7:00pm
(Jan 2012 Block)
Walker Collected Data Walker Collected Data
26 November 8, 2022 Item 01 167 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
10 –
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013, Village Specific Plan (August 2012) Jan 2012 Study
Saturday
1:00 PM
Demand Utilization Utilization Demand Utilization
A (B) 17 17 100% 38% 17 100%
B (C) 14 14 100% 87% 14 100%
C (D) 8 5 63% 100% 8 100%
D (E) 34 33 97% 94% 33 97%
E (F) 25 24 96% 92% 25 100%
F (G) 80 81 101% 97% 79 99%
G (H) 10 11 110% 73% 9 90%
H (I, J) 18 16 89% 100% 18 100%
I (K) 26 21 81% 72% 25 96%
J (L) 42 28 67% 65% 30 71%
K (M, N, O) 42 43 102% 86% 41 98%
L (P) 43 35 81% 95% 36 84%
M (Q) 17 12 71% 100% 14 82%
N (R) 31 13 42% 50% 8 26%
O (S, T) 36 35 97% 100% 33 92%
P (U) 73 59 81% 93% 38 52%
Q (V) 38 35 92% 89% 28 74%
R (X, Y) 22 21 95% 84% 16 73%
S (Z) 24 19 79% 82% 7 29%
T (AA) 18 8 44% 26% 2 11%
U 22 10 45% NA 17 77%
V 16 16 100% NA 16 100%
W 10 4 40% NA 4 40%
X (W) 12 4 33% 0% 3 25%
Y (W) 13 7 54% NA 7 54%
Total 691 571 83% 83% 528 76%
Walker Collected Data Walker Collected Data
Saturday August 24, 2013 Saturday August 24, 2013
Block
(Jan 2012 Block) Inventory
12:30pm 7:00pm
27 November 8, 2022 Item 01 168 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
11 Figure 4 illustrates Saturday mid-day on-street and off-street parking utilization. Figure 5 illustrates Saturday evening on-street and off-street parking utilization.
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013
28 November 8, 2022 Item 01 169 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
12 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013
29 November 8, 2022 Item 01 170 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
13 TURNOVER
Walker performed license plate inventory (LPI) surveys to examine how long parked vehicles remained in parking spaces, or “parking space „turnover.‟” With LPI we record the last 4 digits of a license plate every hour in order to determine how long a vehicle remains parked. The focus of this portion of the study was on:
locations experiencing high occupancy of 85+ percent during the weekday peak periods and other areas of concern noted in discussions with City staff, as vehicles parked for long periods of time in these locations could negatively impact drivers looking for parking in these locations;
the on-street parking spaces serving the main commercial blocks along Camino del Mar; and
Parking spaces along residential blocks that experienced relatively high parking occupancy rates.
On August 23, 2013, Walker performed hourly turnover counts from 10:30 am to 7:30 am on Camino Del Mar between 12th Street and Del Mar Plaza, on Stratford Court between 12th Street and 15th Street, on 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th Streets between Camino Del Mar and Luneta Drive, on 15th Street between Luneta Drive and Carolina Road and on Luneta Drive between 11th Street and 14th Street. Additional turnover counts were performed along some residential streets in order to record the presence of cars earlier in the morning.
A summary of the results of the fieldwork follows.
Within the LPI area, occupancy peaked at 12:30 PM at 262± parked vehicles, consistent with the weekday mid-day peak hour.
During the 12:30 PM peak, there were 74± cars parked on Camino Del Mar in the LPI area. Of these, 17 (23%) were parked for at least 3 hours in spite of the 2-hour (and occasional 20-minute) time restriction of spaces on Camino Del Mar. Parking enforcement was noted actively chalking parked cars. Walker noted parkers‟ attempts to avoid enforcement of the time restriction, as a few instances of chalk being wiped off tires was observed. A few cars were also observed re-parking in different spaces.
Some cars that were parked beyond the posted time limits had placards for people with disabilities displayed.
In the rest of the LPI study area there were 188± parked cars during the 12:30 PM peak.
Of these, 128 cars (68% of occupied spaces) were occupied by vehicles parked for at least 4 hours. There are few time restricted spaces on the LPI streets other than on Camino Del Mar. However it is worth nothing that the majority of the on-street parking occurring on the side streets consisted of long-term parkers. The percentage of 4+ hour parkers on the side streets among cars parked at 12:30 PM ranged from 58% on Stratford Avenue to 85% on 12th Street.
Table 6 shows the total number of cars parked all day (as opposed to a “snapshot” of the number of cars parked at the peak) observed during the LPI period, and how long they were 30 November 8, 2022 Item 01 171 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
14 parked. Additionally, Table 6 shows the same information broken out for Stratford Avenue, 14th Street and Luneta Drive.
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013
In general, most parking spaces on Camino Del Mar are turning over, although not to the extent that the posted policy suggests. On the side streets where there are no time restrictions, parking spaces are turning over with much less frequency. Based on the observations recorded, parking on the side streets is a mix of employee, resident, beachgoer and downtown visitor parking. There was also a clear occurrence of long-term parkers turning over during the 3:30 and 4:30 observation periods, indicating that many of the 5-7 hour parkers were employees of downtown or Del Mar Plaza businesses.
SAMPLE PARKING TURNOVER IN DETAIL – CAMINO DEL MAR AND STRATFORD COURT The following tables demonstrate in greater detail the extent to which cars parked on Camino del Mar and Stratford Court during the lunch-time peak hour are long-term vehicles.
Table 7 below demonstrates that just over 20 percent of parking spaces (17 cars parked) on Camino del Mar were occupied by cars parked for approximately three hours or more. Six percent of spaces were occupied by cars parked for approximately four hours or more. These spaces, occupied by long-term parkers, are effectively out of service to the general visiting public.
Hours Parked # of Cars % of Total # of Cars % of Total # of Cars % of Total # of Cars % of Total 1 424 47% 8 15% 19 20% 11 18%
2 205 23% 9 17% 23 24% 18 30%
3 98 11% 9 17% 14 15% 3 5%
4 40 4% 2 4% 11 12% 6 10%
5 39 4% 8 15% 10 11% 3 5%
6 23 3% 4 7% 4 4% 2 3%
7 35 4% 6 11% 5 5% 8 13%
8 20 2% 3 6% 6 6% 2 3%
9 5 1% - 0% 1 1% 1 2%
10 22 2% 5 9% 2 2% 6 10%
Total Cars Observed 911 100% 54 100% 95 100% 60 100%
Total Area Stratford 14th Luneta
31 November 8, 2022 Item 01 172 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
15 Table 7: Camino del Mar - Length of Stay During the Peak Hour Table 8 below demonstrates that just over 50 percent of parking spaces (31 cars parked) on Stratford Court were occupied by cars parked for approximately four hours or more. However, unlike Camino del Mar the length of stay on Stratford Court does not necessarily convey whether the vehicle belongs to a resident, employee or business owner. On Stratford Court we observed that a significant number of the cars parked early in the morning were not present in the mid-afternoon and that a significant of those cars present in the mid-afternoon were not parked in the morning. We conclude from these observations that the on-street parking along Stratford Court is used heavily, though by no means exclusively, by employees and business owners.
TYPE INVENTORY 1-2
HOURS 3 HOURS
4 HOURS
OR
LONGER
20MIN 2 2 2 -- -- 0%
2HR 6 6 3 3 -- 0%
20MIN 1 1 1 -- -- 0%
2HR 7 7 2 5 -- 0%
20MIN 1 1 1 -- -- 0%
2HR 13 13 12 1 -- 0%
ADA 1 1 1 -- -- 0%
20MIN 1 -- -- -- -- 0%
2HR 13 12 10 1 1 8%
20MIN 1 1 1 -- -- 0%
2HR 14 13 10 2 1 7%
2HR 8 4 1 0 3 38%
ADA 1 -- -- -- -- 0%
20MIN 4 2 2 -- -- 0%
2HR 9 11 11 -- -- 0%
Total 82 74 57 12 5 6%
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013
CAMINO DEL MAR
14TH ST 15TH ST
EAST
CARS
PARKED AT
12:30 PM
LENGTH OF STAY PERCENT OF
SPACES NOT
AVAILABLE FOR
SHORT-TERM
PARKING
12TH ST 13TH ST
EAST
WEST
13TH ST
13TH ST
14TH ST EAST
CROSSWALK WEST
PLAZA ENT
CROSSWALK WEST
32 November 8, 2022 Item 01 173 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
16 Table 8: Stratford Court - Length of Stay Peak Hour
STREET FROM TO SIDE OF
STREET
TYPE INVENTORY
1-3 HOURS 4-5 HOURS 6 HOURS OR
LONGER
EAST 13 12 1 2 9 69%
WEST 13 13 3 3 7 54%
20MIN 3 2 2 -- -- --
2HR 5 4 4 -- -- --
REG 20 19 9 3 7 35%
WEST 2HR 5 5 5 -- -- --
Total 59 55 24 8 23 53%
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2013.
STRATFORD
PERCENT OF
SPACES OCCUPIED
BY LONG-TERM
PARKERS
CARS
PARKED
AT 12:30
PM
LENGTH OF STAY IN HOURS
13TH ST 15TH ST
EAST
12TH ST 13TH ST REG
33 November 8, 2022 Item 01 174 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
17 FINDINGS
The following are highlights of the analysis of the data we collected during our parking surveys and their significance. Overall our findings suggest that even with a number of block faces effectively lacking available parking spaces, significant number of parking spaces were unoccupied on adjacent streets or off-street surface parking lots, which are currently off-limits to most parkers. The findings demonstrate that the use of the current parking policies will result in the continued imbalance in parking demand throughout the district.
ON-STREET
Observed weekday mid-day and Saturday peak parking occupancy rates during the August 2013 counts were very similar to the peak occupancies observed in the January 2012 study. However, the addition of evening counts revealed that Saturday evening represents the overall peak period of parking due to valet parking and the resulting high utilization in the Del Mar Plaza parking structure as well as evening events at the L‟Auberge Hotel. This suggests that cooperation with these two properties with regard to their evening employee parking needs could ease the demand for on-street parking in the evenings. The development of a comprehensive employee parking program for the district is important.
During the Saturday evening peak, 76 percent of on-street and 59 percent of off-street spaces were occupied. During the Saturday midday count, the peak parking occupancy rate for on-street spaces was 83 percent of on-street spaces were occupied. Despite the different parking patterns observed during both periods, the number of unoccupied off-street spaces in each case numbered over 400. These vacant spaces represent an underutilized resource.
Throughout the study area on-street parking between 13th Street and 15th Street was observed to be more heavily utilized during all observation periods than on-street parking spaces south of 13th Street. Parking demand on Camino del Mar was illustrative of this phenomenon. For most of our surveys, on-street parking spaces along Camino del Mar north of 13th Street experienced occupancies above 90% and in some cases nearly 100%. Meanwhile on-street spaces along Camino del Mar south of 13th Street tended to experience occupancy rates well below 90% overall. The availability of onand off-street parking spaces in the study area south of 13th Street, particularly on weekends represents parking spaces to which parking demand could be redistributed. The Del Mar Village Association-sponsored valet program on the west side of Camino Del Mar just south of 15th Street does not appear to be highly utilized. At 7:30 PM on the Friday of the license plate inventory there were just four vehicles parked in the designated valet lot. The low utilization number suggests that the valet program should be reassessed. Parking spaces currently made available to the valet program may be more useful if opened to general public parking for visitors and perhaps employees. 34 November 8, 2022 Item 01 175 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
18 OFF-STREET PARKING
Off-street parking was generally underutilized with the exception of the L‟Auberge employee lot, the metered and public parking under the L‟Auberge, and the Del Mar Plaza parking structure. The underutilization of private off-street parking (not including Del Mar Plaza) was especially pronounced on the weekend, however at any given time during our surveys there were at least 400 unoccupied off-street parking spaces in the district overall.
The Del Mar Plaza parking structure was observed to be only 60%-70% full during the mid-day periods, but was effectively at 100% capacity during the evenings with valet operations. While Plaza employees were observed parking on Camino Del Mar, on 15th Street west of Luneta Drive and on Zuni Drive, visitors and beachgoers were observed parking at the Plaza and then heading elsewhere.
While a portion of the City Hall lot is free public parking, it is still underutilized. This may be partially due to conflicting and inconsistent signage at the entrance to the upper level of the City Hall lot, as well as a lack of wayfinding signage to guide people to the parking lot. A family was observed during our counts parking at the public meters under the L‟Auberge and dining at Café Secret on Camino Del Mar between 12th Street and 11th Street. Free parking at the City Hall lot would have been a closer parking option and an acceptable walking distance.
LENGTH OF STAY AND PARKING TURNOVER
Our surveys suggested that, on residential streets where the demand for parking was high, parkers were made up of a mix of parking user groups including residents, employees, and visitors.
Based on our LPI observations and analysis on Stratford Avenue between 13th and 15th Streets, we conservatively estimate that 25 percent of the spaces not subject to time restrictions are occupied by residents during the 12:30 pm peak hour. Of the remaining vehicles we project that approximately half belonged to employees of downtown businesses due to observed lengths of stay of four hours or more. Based on the LPI observations of 15th Street east of Luneta Drive, there is a clear mix of residents and Plaza employees parking on the street. Demand for parking on the block peaked at a consistent 15 to 16 cars in the second half of the day, from 3:30 pm to 7:30 pm. We project that approximately half of those parked cars belonged to employees and one quarter belonged to residents.
Ample, available parking on Luneta Drive was observed between 11th Street and 14th Street throughout the day. However a significant portion of the parked cars were observed to belong either to downtown business employees or residents, which we estimate represented 15 and 10 of the cars parked respectively during the peak demand period. During the 12:30 pm peak hour a total of 34 total cars were observed parked from 11th to 14th Street.
35 November 8, 2022 Item 01 176 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
19 Several cars parked on-street on Luneta Drive throughout the LPI were later observed parked in residential driveways on Luneta Drive.
The parking lot at Bruegger‟s Bagels/Starbucks did not turn over as often as expected; we estimate that most cars were parked far longer than the 20 – 30 minute length of stay that we would expect at that location. Most customers were observed parking above the site at the metered church lot or at the bank parking stalls after hours. Other customers for this location were observed walking from the Del Mar Plaza parking garage. While we did not specifically perform a length of stay survey, we suspect that some long-term parking may be taking place in this lot, perhaps including some employees of the businesses.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The parking system serving Del Mar Village and adjacent areas does not suffer from a lack of parking spaces overall but instead is in need of a redistribution of parking demand in order to better utilize underutilized (generally unoccupied) spaces. Indeed, even if more parking spaces were added to the parking system, an improvement in the availability of visitor parking is extremely unlikely; competition for - and the lack of availability of - the most convenient spaces for visitors would persist.
The parking issues facing Del Mar are not an infrastructural problem, but rather operational, parking management and policy issues. These issues result in part from the behavior of longterm parkers, typically those who work in the area. All policies, or lack thereof, encourage a behavioral response. The issues regarding parking availability in Del Mar are, to a significant extent, related to policies in place that encourage the parking behavior and habits that we have observed. Changing these policies will improve parking availability; maintaining these policies will result in continued challenges.
Finally, it is worth noting that the demand patterns for the parking system observed during the peak summer months were generally consistent with those observed during busy days in the winter.
In order to better manage parking demand in and around Del Mar Village, the demand for parking needs to be redistributed. In order to do so, we recommend that the City pursue the following measures:
Develop an employee parking program to mitigate the impact of employee parking on city streets, particularly in locations where providing parking for visitors is a priority.
Several of the following recommendations would be elements of this program, both to better utilize some off-street parking spaces for employees and discourage the use of visitor parking spaces by employees.
Open up privately owned off-street lots (including those belonging to houses of worship) to allow employee and/or public parking in these lots after the close of the business day or when spaces are generally observed to be highly underutilized. 36 November 8, 2022 Item 01 177 August 25, 2026 Item 14
CITY OF DEL MAR
CURRENT PARKING CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 16, 2013 37-8373.00
20 Incentives for property owners are a useful tool for facilitating such a policy. Making existing, underutilized parking spaces more widely available is far more cost effective than building new parking spaces and is more likely to provide parking in locations that are convenient to parkers‟ destinations.
Due to the low utilization of the existing valet program, make the lot currently used to park valet cars in the evening available for general public parking. Increase turnover on Camino del Mar by extending the hours of enforcement of time limited spaces from 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM to discourage restaurant/nighttime employee use of these spots at the beginning of their shifts. With the current ending of the 2-Hour time limit restriction at 6:00 PM, employees can safely park on Camino Del Mar after 3:30 PM and not move their car until their shift ends, taking up valuable restaurant parking for customers.
Improve wayfinding to the public parking available at the City Hall lot, and provide clearer signage at the entrance to the lot.
Reintroduce parking permit programs for residents. We note that based on our research and observations, residential parking programs that exist in other California coastal cities exist in tandem with paid parking and may not be implementable for parking spaces solely regulated by time restrictions.
Given the extent to which regulating on-street parking is limited, create a policy to incent employees to park in designated off-street parking areas including rewards for employees who are observed to park in these areas.
Expand paid parking to Camino del Mar, north of 13th Street. Paid parking has proven to be the only effective method by which to make parking spaces available to customers and visitors. The City currently has paid parking infrastructure and operations in place in other locations. Some of these paid parking spaces are located where parking demand is lower than on Camino del Mar (such as in the lot off Maiden Lane, just south of 15th Street). Paid parking is most effective where the demand for parking is highest.
Customers prefer a paid, available space to a free space that they have trouble finding and which requires a significant walk.
The parking system which serves Del Mar Village and the adjacent area is a combination of on-street and off-street, publicly- and privately-owned parking spaces. Together the parking spaces represent a comprehensive parking system; policies that impact one type of space tend to impact others. The lack of availability of on-street, visitor parking is the greatest challenge facing the parking system concomitant with the challenge of increasing utilization of restricted off-street parking spaces.
Policies are necessary that A) are effective in turning over parking spaces for visitors on the street and B) make off-street parking spaces as convenient for parkers, particularly employees, as possible. The consequences of not implementing both types of policies will result in the perpetuation of the parking issues that the City currently faces. 37 November 8, 2022 Item 01 178 August 25, 2026 Item 14 X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X X X X
X
(N) POOL
(N) PATIO
EL: 152.0'
(N) POOL EQ.
ENCLOSURE
(E) TRASH
(N) SPA
6x10
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X X X X
X
(N) POOL
(N) PATIO
EL: 152.0'
(N) POOL EQ.
ENCLOSURE
(E) TRASH
(N) SPA
6x10
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X X X X
X
(N) POOL
(N) PATIO
EL: 152.0'
(N) POOL EQ.
ENCLOSURE
(E) TRASH
(N) SPA
6x10 LUNETA DRIVE
60'
6'-2" 15'
5'
25'-4"
REMOVE EXISTING POOL
4'
15'-6"
4'-6"
20'
FRONT YARD
SETBACK
PROPOSED 5' HIGH MASONRY POOL
EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE WITH
ABSORBER SOUND BLANKET BY
ACOUSTICAL SOLUTIONS #AQFA-10EXT,
SEE SHT. L 1.3
EXISTING TRASH RECEPTACLE
LOCATION TO REMAIN
EXISTING
FENCE, TYP.
TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN,
REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE IN-KIND
EXISTING
ARBOR TO
REMAIN,
REPAIR
AND/OR
REPLACE
IN-KIND PER
VARIANCE
V-84-9, DATED
11/13/84.
EXISTING ARBOR TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING GATES TO REMAIN, REPAIR,
RE-HINGE FOR POOL SAFE SWING IN
EXISTING SITE WALL TO REMAIN,
REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE IN-KIND
EXISTING SITE WALL TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
EXISTING FENCE, TYP. TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
EXISTING SITE WALL TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
EXISTING FENCE, TYP. TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
EXISTING SITE WALL TO REMAIN,
REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE IN-KIND
LINE OF WALK-OUT BASEMENT
LINE OF FIRST FLOOR BELOW
EXISTING SITE WALL TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
EXISTING GATE TO REMAIN,
REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE IN-KIND,
RE-HINGE FOR POOL SAFE SWING IN
EXISTING
GATES TO
REMAIN,
REPAIR
AND/OR
REPLACE
IN-KIND,
POOL SAFE
EXISTING
SITE WALL
TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
AND/OR
REPLACE
IN-KIND
EXISTING SITE WALL TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
EXISTING SLIDING GATE TO REMAIN, REPAIR,
POOL SAFE
EXISTING DECKING TO REMAIN,
REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE IN-KIND
EXISTING SITE WALL TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
EXISTING WOOD STAIRS AND
HANDRAILS TO BE REPAIRED
EXISTING SITE WALL TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
PROPOSED IN-GRADE POOL W/COVER,
(PERMIT BY OTHERS)
SOLAR HEATING TO BE INSTALLED PER
ENERGY CONSERVATION
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED SPA, RAISED 18" HT.
EXISTING
SITE WALL
TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
AND/OR
REPLACE
IN-KIND
EXISTING
FENCE, TYP.
TO REMAIN,
REPAIR
EXISTING WALKWAY TO REMAIN
AND BE RESURFACED WITH STONE
EXISTING TENNIS COURT & PAVING TO
BE REMOVED
(E) ASPHALT
PARKING
REPLACE
(E) BRICK
PATIO
REMOVE
(E) TENNIS
COURT
REMOVE
(E) CONCRETE
DRIVEWAY
REPLACE
(N) LAWN
(N) LAWN
(E) WOOD
DECK
(E) POOL
REMOVE
(N) PROPOSED
PLANTING
(E) PLT
(E) PLT
(E) BRICK WALKWAY/REPLACE W/STONE
(E) PLT
(E) LAWN
REPLACE
WITH PLANTS
(E) LAWN
REPLACE
WITH PLANTS
(E) 3-STORY HOUSE
(E) PLT
(E) PLT
(E) PLT
(E) PLT
(E) PLT
(E) PLT
(E) PLT
(E) PLT
(E) PLT
(E) PLT (E) PLT
(E) PLT
(E) PLT
(E) GARAGE
W/ GARDEN ROOM
ABOVE
REMOVE EXISTING DECKING
(N) PLT
(N) PLT
(E) BRICK WALKWAY/REPLACE W/STONE (E) BRICK WALKWAY/REPLACE W/STONE (N) PAVING,
STONE
(N) PAVING, STONE (N) PAVING, STONE
(N) PAVING,
STONE
(E) PLANTER
WALL
REMOVED
(E) PLANTER
WALL
REMOVED
(E) PLANTER
WALL
REMOVED
(E) PLANTER
WALL
REMOVED
EXISTING
GATE TO
REMAIN,
REPAIR
AND/OR
REPLACE
IN-KIND,
RE-HINGE FOR
POOL SAFE
SWING IN
6'
10'
10'
6'
27'-1"
12'-10" 11'
29'
PROPOSED GAS FIREPLACE
MAX. 48 S.F., W/ CHIMNEY NOT TO
EXCEED 6' HT.,
SEE DETAIL ELEVATION
(N) PLT
A
L1.2
4'
12'
10'
SIDE YARD
SETBACK
25'
REAR YARD
SETBACK
(E) PLT
5'-3"
5'-2"
EXISTING DECKING TO
REMAIN, REPAIR
4'-6"
PROPOSED AREA OF
IMPROVEMENT
PROPOSED IN-GRADE AUTOMATIC
POOL COVER
SEE LAND CONSERVATION PERMIT
EXHIBIT, SHEET A-1.1
FS 152.0 + FS 152.0 +
FS 152.0 +
FS 153.5 +
(E)TW 155.0 +
(E)TW 155.0 +
(N) D.G.
AREA
PROPOSED D.G. AREA
6'-5"
B
L1.3
C
L1.3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X
X X
L 1.1LANDSCAPE PLAN
SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"
SHEET 1 OF 4VOIGTLANDER RESIDENCE
DRAWN
PROJECT #
FALA355 14TH STREET, DEL MAR, CA 92014
22.39 ORIGINAL DATE: 01/13/23
PLOT DATE: 2/7/23
REV. DATE: CALIFORNIA LICENCE 3344 2220 OTAY LAKES RD STE 502 #748,CHULA VISTA, CA 91915 TEL: 858-910-3576, EMAIL: [email protected]
N S
*S
E
E C L I
C
O F
T E A T
Date
C A L
Renewal Date * N I A
R O I F
H I
T T C
E
L D
N S A D C A
A R
P E
Signature
2/28/2024
02/06/2023
“LANDSCAPING FOR THE PROJECT SHALL BE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY’S WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND
WITH THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WATER
EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE (DMMC CHAPTER 23.60).”
“I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE WATER
EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND APPLIED THEM FOR THE
EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLAN”
SIGNATURE DATE
02/06/2023
02/06/23
NORTH
0 16 feet
1/8" = 1'-0"
8 24 32
1" ACTUAL IF THIS DOES NOT MEASURE 1" ACTUAL, THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR REDUCED, AND ALL LABELED SCALES ARE INCORRECT.
PAVING CALCULATION
EXISTING IMPERVEOUS PAVING: 8,234 SQ.FT.
PROPOSED IMPERVOUS PAVING: 3,949 SQ.FT.
NET CHANGE: 4,285 SQ.FT. DECREASE APN: 300-020-18-00
LANDSCAPE CALCULATION
EXISTING LANDSCAPE: 3,454 SQ.FT. 20%
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE: 6,291 SQ.FT. 37%
NET CHANGE: 2,837 SQ.FT. INCREASE
03 PAVING
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY
PROPOSED STONE PAVING (IMPERVIOUS) 3,938 SF
PROPOSED DECKING (PERVIOUS) 1,004 SF
PROPOSED D.G. (PERVIOUS) 880 SF
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS PAVING 8,234 SF
EXISTING PERVIOUS PAVING 990 SF
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS PAVING TO BE REMOVED 5,784 SF
EXISTING LANDSCAPE 3,354 SF
09 OTHER
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA 6,291 SF
PAVING-IMPERVIOUS 3,949 SF
PAVING-PERVIOUS 1,884 SF
POOL/SPA AREA 960 SF
LOT AREA 17,187 SF
BUILDING FOOTPRINT 3,352 SF
REFERENCE NOTES SCHEDULE
EXISTING PERVEOUS PAVING: 990 SQ.FT.
PROPOSED PERVOUS PAVING: 1,884 SQ.FT.
NET CHANGE: 894 SQ.FT. INCREASE
EXISTING PAVING PLAN - NO SCALE
PROJECT SCOPE:
(1) NEW AT-GRADE POOL AT EXISTING TENNIS COURT (NO SITE GRADING) (EXISTING POOL TO BE REMOVED/FILLED IN AND NEW LANDSCAPE ADDED). (2) POOL EQUIPMENT IN NEW ENCLOSURE, 5-FOOT HIGH WALLS WITH SOUND BLANKET. (3) NEW PRE-FABRICATED SPA AT NORTH DECK.
(4) NEW GAS FIREPLACE WITH 6-FOOT HIGH CHIMNEY AND 12-INCH HIGH SEAT WALLS, TOTAL AREA 4' X 12'
(5) REMOVE AND RELOCATE DECK STAIRS APPROXIMATELY 3-FEET TO THE SOUTH. (6) NEW LANDSCAPE LIGHTING.
CITY OF DEL MAR
Application Date:
Notice Date:
End of Appeal Date:
Approved: ADR23-003 2/23/20233/9/2023 3/31/2023
38 November 8, 2022 Item 01 179 August 25, 2026 Item 14 39 November 8, 2022 Item 01 180 August 25, 2026 Item 14 40 November 8, 2022 Item 01 181 August 25, 2026 Item 14 Comparative
Analysis of
Fences at 355
14th Street
Examining side by side
41 November 8, 2022 Item 01 182 August 25, 2026 Item 14 14th Street
42 November 8, 2022 Item 01 183 August 25, 2026 Item 14 Luneta
The elevations of the old building are identical to the new ones.
You could not see the building; the fence was significantly taller. 43 November 8, 2022 Item 01 184 August 25, 2026 Item 14 The prior entry gate was non-conforming in its width. The new entry gate utilizes the same stairs and is therefore of the same width. The arbor (under variance 84-9) is taller than the new entry structure. 44 November 8, 2022 Item 01 185 August 25, 2026 Item 14 Luneta/14th Street corner
45 November 8, 2022 Item 01 186 August 25, 2026 Item 14 Alley
46 November 8, 2022 Item 01 187 August 25, 2026 Item 14 Old fence went significantly higher
as seen in this pictures.
47 November 8, 2022 Item 01 188 August 25, 2026 Item 14 April 10th accident against fence
View from inside of the property
48 November 8, 2022 Item 01 189 August 25, 2026 Item 14 View from the the outside - Luneta
49 November 8, 2022 Item 01 190 August 25, 2026 Item 14 50 November 8, 2022 Item 01 191 August 25, 2026 Item 14 51 November 8, 2022 Item 01 192 August 25, 2026 Item 14 52 November 8, 2022 Item 01 193 August 25, 2026 Item 14
VOIGTLANDER FENCE
355 14TH STREET
EXHIBIT 1 OF 4
& SNEED
ARCHITECTS
BOKAL SITE PHOTO SURVEY KEY
Scale: N.T.S.
1 2
3 4
5 6
53 November 8, 2022 Item 01 194 August 25, 2026 Item 14 & SNEED
ARCHITECTS
BOKAL SITE PHOTO SURVEY
Scale: N.T.S.
480 CAROLINA -- 5'-0" H. FENCE ON 1'-0" H. WALL AT STREET 2 1410 LUNETA DRIVE -- 6'-0" H. POST AT FENCE
1 355 14TH STREET
EXHIBIT 2 OF 4
VOIGTLANDER FENCE
54 November 8, 2022 Item 01 195 August 25, 2026 Item 14 & SNEED
ARCHITECTS
BOKAL SITE PHOTO SURVEY
Scale: N.T.S.
328 13TH STREET -- 6'-0" H. FENCE ON 28" H. WALL AT PROPERTY LINE 323 14TH STREET -- 34" H. FENCE ON 42" H. WALL
4 3
355 14TH STREET
EXHIBIT 3 OF 4
VOIGTLANDER FENCE
55 November 8, 2022 Item 01 196 August 25, 2026 Item 14 & SNEED
ARCHITECTS
BOKAL SITE PHOTO SURVEY
Scale: N.T.S.
336 12TH STREET -- 5'-0" H. FENCE AT STREET
1242 LUNETA DRIVE -- 6'-0" H. FENCE AT PROPERTY LINE
6 5
355 14TH STREET
Exhibit 4 of 4
VOIGTLANDER FENCE
56 November 8, 2022 Item 01 197 August 25, 2026 Item 14 City of Del Mar
Staff Report
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
November 8, 2022
APPLICATION: V22-001
REQUEST: A request for a Variance from Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section
30.86.090(A)(1) to permit fencing in the required front yard and street side yard areas of the lot to be up to five feet in height, where a maximum height of three-and-one-half feet is allowed. The Variance request is for an increase in the maximum fence height that is specific to three different segments of fencing on the lot along Kalamath Drive and Crest Road.
APPLICANTS/OWNERS: Judith Schuckit
AGENT: Robert Scott
SITE LOCATION: 785 Kalamath Drive
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 300-145-03-00
ZONE: R1-10
OVERLAY ZONE: Wildland Urban Interface
COMMUNITY PLAN DESIGNATION: The property is designated as Low Density Residential (R1- 10, maximum 4.3 units/net acre) in the North Hills Planning area and is intended to allow for single residential dwelling unit uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project has been analyzed and determined to be Categorically Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(e), Class 3 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, because the proposed project involves the construction of a fence that is accessory to an existing single residential dwelling structure. It is further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a Categorical Exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).
HOUSING IMPACT: The project does not include the demolition, alteration, or development of any housing units. Therefore, the approval of the requested discretionary development application would not have any adverse impact on the City of Del Mar’s housing supply or housing affordability. 57 November 8, 2022 Item 01 198 August 25, 2026 Item 14
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT: V22-001
November 8, 2022