Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda

Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda
Del Mar Communications Center
240 Tenth Street, Del Mar, California
February 16, 2016 City Council Meeting
INFORMATION RECEIVED
AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA
WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)
February 16, 2016
TO: Adam Birnbaum
FR: Sherryl Parks
RE: Agenda Item 11 – Quarterly Report from Ad Hoc Dev. Review Process Advisory
Subject: Additional topics for discussion and review
After reading the report I believe there are a few additional concerns that should be
investigated and added to your discussions as you move through improving our DRB
process:
Conditions of approval likely consider truck routes into town yet when there are multiple
projects in one neighborhood the impacts of these trucks (for 8 hours/day) can be
increased noise, dust, traffic and pedestrian disruption.
Workmen and delivery trucks parked all along the streets, often in spots that endanger
pedestrians and drivers, particularly since Del Mar’s hilly nature and curvy streets add to
the difficulty.
The length of time it takes for many projects to be completed. Presently we have
guidelines on when an applicant needs to initiate or vet the project yet there is nothing on
the books that require a project to be completed. Impacts of construction noise, trucks,
and unsightliness in neighborhood can go on for years and years.
Infrequently but should be included in the code is when a home is damaged due to
flooding, fire or other challenges and nothing is done to cite the house though it sits
empty and untidy, unused for months and even years. On our street a house was
purchases as a ‘spec house’ and after it was gutted and improved on the
outside/landscaping too, it was never completed inside. It has been siting empty for over
7 years now.
I support a front-loaded design process so that some of the kinks of the project will be
avoided prior to costly design plans/architectural plans are drawn. The experience of
being charged fee, after fee to reapply, is unfair to the client who goes into the process in
good faith but oftentimes neighbors put up objections after much time and money has
already been spent on plans.
I fully support using improved technology at the DRB and CPP to help educate about the
project yet I would hope our staff would not require the more costly products and place a
burden on the applicant.
I believe that by tackling each zone, step by step, to create expectations that suit their
unique conditions will have a better process and enhance Del Mar.
1
February 16, 2016
Item 11
February 15,2Ot6
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Del Mar
Del Mar, CA9201,4
Re: Ad Hoc Development Review Process Citizens'Advisory Committee
Update on ldentified Problems & Possible Actions
Dear Mayor and City Council Members
We are part of a group - Moving Del Mar Forward, Moving Del Mar Forward is a group of
residents who support positive change, reflective of the Community Plan, and in the best
interest of the Del Mar community and its residents,
Moving Del Mar Forward wantsto promote a positive and successful outcome forthe Ad Hoc
Development Review Process Citizens' Advisory Committee (the "Ad Hoc Committee") - an
outcome beneficial to maíntaining the character and quality of life in Del Mar and that can be
supported by the entire community, ln support of this goal, we are providing this response to
the Update on ldentified Problems & Possible Actions report (the "Ad Hoc Report")that is being
presented to the City,
Before responding to specific portions of the Ad Hoc Report, we want to make the following
general comments regarding the Ad Hoc Committee:
L
The Ad Hoc Committee is at this time perhaps the most important committee in Del Mar
because it will make recommendations regarding changes to the DRO that will have lasting
implications to the City, Because of this, we have attended every Ad Hoc meeting and heard
all of the public comments and discussions amongst the Ad Hoc Committee,
2.
GiventheimportanceoftheAdHocCommittee,weoriginallyrequestedthatall meetings
be recorded - a request that was originally rejected by the Ad Hoc Committee, Ad Hoc
Committee meetings have been "sporadically" recorded but we stillfeelstrongly that all
meetings be recorded and available online so there is a record of the input and discussions.
We will say the Ad Hoc Committee Secretary, Anne Farrell, does a very good job on the
minutes. However, no set of minutes can ever be complete nor can it reflect the tenor of
meetings - specifically the complete input and tenor from the public.
we are requesting that all Ad Hoc Committee meetings be recorded and
recordings be placed on line.
Once again
I
-
February 16,2016
Item
11
3.
Del Mar residents know workshops, such as those held for the Shores Park and City Hall
projects, to be interactive meetings where people can exchange back and forth comments
regarding a given topic. ln gatherÍng inputthusfar, the Ad Hoc Committee has relied on a
limited speaking format or submission of written comments per specific topic, not an open
forum. MDF would like to stress the importance of the Ad Hoc Committee following through
with their proposal of publicly vetting proposed problems/solutions in a future interactive
workshop(s) engaging the broader Del Mar community'
4.
The Ad Hoc Committee has stated this Ad Hoc Report is focused on identifying the "low
hanging fru¡t" - presumably non-controversial problems that may be solved easily via a
policy directive from the City Council versus any ordinance change'
We support the DRO and the DRB. However, we believe there are some fundamental issues
that need to be addressed as part of this review, So rather than identifying a couple of "low
hangingfruit" problems here orthere atthis point and then workingon some solutions, we
think the better approach is to allow the Ad Hoc to complete its Phase 1- objective - identify
all of the problems with the design approval process, Workingon a couple of "low hanging
fruit" problems at this time will serve little purpose untilthe entire picture is made clear,
and posing solutions to potential problems before reviewing each problem/solution in
context to the whole could have unintended consequences.
As stated in the Ad Hoc Committee minutes of Septemb er L,2Ot5, "Chairman Feder
recommended that once we have identified problems, we would issue a report to City
Council. lf they agree with those, then we would move forward proposing solutions.
'ldentifying problems before solutions'should be the committee's motto." We concur and
encourage you to resist the urge to implement a quick fix. To use a real estate analogy, why
spend money touching up the paint when the siding needs repair?
5.
Without usíng more specific numbers and to avoid being misleading, the report should
refrain from using generalities of "many residents" or a "number of citizens" to reference
commentaryfrom the public, ln some instances, the actualities are one ortwo people' ln
reverse, in ltem #4 of the Ad Hoc Report it was stated, "members of the public" expressed
the need for less subjectivity in the design review process. ln reality, almost half of all
residents (24of 5L) andall 6architects/builderswhospokeexpressedsubjectivityasakey
problem,
6.
The Ad Hoc Committee has kept a log of the input it has received and sorted itvia a given
issue. We should mention that in some instances a reference is made to "Thomas/Fried,
813/L5". We should point out that is a reference to a document submitted by Bob Fried and
Tina Thomas to the Ad Hoc Committee. That document was an attempt to list/organize all
of the issuetheAd Hoc Committee had listed atone of its meetingand wasan attemptto
help the Ad Hoc Committee develop a Work Plan. lt was not intended to be a list of issues
raised byTina and Bob, We just don't want any confusion re the purpose of this document.
2
February 16,2016
Item
11
The following represents our response
to specific items in the Ad Hoc Report'
is misleading. These issues/solutions were topics raised by
at
an
initial meeting when trying to identify their version of
itself
the ad hoc committee
potential problems:
1& 2, Again, reference to "many"
-
Design review guidebook for both applicants & neighbors. Good idea but questions of
cost, language & content, and who will compile must be addressed, Anyfunding
proposals must be regarded in context to the whole, not piece by piece, May not be very
simple.
Ombudsman, to help explain a project to the public. This raises many questions, What
willthe cost be and who will pay for this? Willthey take a position on a project? Could it
be that an applicant would be in a position to payfor someone to lobby against their
own project? Everyone has access to the planning staff to address concerns and
questions. The focus should be on improving the quality of information available and
defining and providing better access to it. Something as simple as communicating how to
access more info on any project could be included with CPP letters. Or add a link on the
website.
3.
We concur with the need for adequate review time by the DRB and interested parties.
4.
The public feedback was virtually unanimous in expressing frustration over the lack of clear,
consistent, objective guidelines, as has been done effectively in other communities,
includingthose with character. lt does not have to be "excessively prescriptive," We
suggest Del Mar study other cities'best practices to evaluate their approaches and see what
might be appropriate for Del Mar.
-
Santa Barbara for example provides quantitative and qualitative general definitions for
every controversialterm, i,e,:Volume vs Bulk. Following their qualitative and quantitative
word definitions is a pictorialone as well to demonstrate the concepts. Their DRO
guidelines then use photos and line drawings to demonstrate design concepts that work
and do not work for bulk/mass.
-
Laguna Beach example: Used Winter & Co, as a consultant, "Neighborhood Compatibility":
Overall description: Neighborhood character is the sum of the qualities that distinguish
areas within the city, íncluding historical patterns of development, village atmosphere,
landscaping themes and architectural styles, Following their design objective they use
photos and drawings to help define success and failure.
5, We fully support the need for consistent, standardized documentation for views and other
DRO issues, Again, a few, not numerous, requests were made, Requirements for costly 3D
renderings, panoramic renderings, detailed floor plans, streetscape photo presentations, etc,
should be limited to documenting specific DRO-related concerns as needed. Relyingon the
sole solution of 3D renderings is short sighted, especially without completing a full review of
3
February 16,2016
Item
11
problems/solutions. Again, reviewing other cities' practices could provide positive and
helpfulideas, lnvestigating all ideas and options, such as how Santa Barbara requires a
street elevation with the proposed project placed in context, must be done priorto any
proposed solution is put into place,
6. Highlighting the relevant portion of the DRO may be helpful but, again, begs the question of
the lack of clarity, consistency and objectivity of the key elements, such as "bulk and mass"
or "unreasonable view blockage". Without clarification, the subjects remain vague and
subjective. The role of the DRB chair, or even staff, could assist in keepingthe board and
members of the public on track when they are out of order, as when personal attacks are
made or irrelevant issues are raised.
7. We concur.
8, We concur that the current practice seems to penalize applicants unfairly'
9. We concur. There is a need for more extensive training and clarity about the role of a DRB
member-- what the role is and what it is not. Situations too often occur where a DRB
member states a personal opinion and strays from actual DRO issues. The DRB applicants'
professionalcredentials should be an essentialfactor in the selection process. DRB
members' ability to understand complex architectural aspects and how they can improve or
detract from the controversial design issues can only help improve the DRB process and how
the public perceives it, The role should be de-politicized in orderto ensure outcomes that
are in keeping with the DROs and the Community Plan'
10. As was stated in ltems 1& 2 regarding the role of the ombudsman, the role of former DRB
members or the ex-officio architect is fraught with challenges, The "equal access" to
professionals already exists in our planning staff.
Moving Del Mar Forward
Jeff Sturgis
Jan Kinney
Greg Rothnem
4
February 16,2016
Item
11
MEETING REPORT FROM DWIGHT WORDEN
MEETING: Ad Hoc DRB/Development Review Committee: Joint meeting with
Planning commission
DATE:
Feb 9, 2016
The committee met in joint session with the Planning Commission on February 9. The focus
was on issues that fall within the Planning commission’s purview and that might be addressed
by code changes. Some of the issues discussed included (this is only a partial list—a complete
listing will be produced by the Committee and the meeting will be available in the city video
archives):












1
Do the code’s current requirements on abatement of non-conformities incident to
remodeling (the 50% rule) inhibit the preservation of older homes by making
remodeling more difficult and expensive? Could code revisions be fashioned to revise
these rules consistent with state law and without compromising the need to update
non-conformities?
Are setbacks set by the code adequate? Should they vary by zone?
Should there be design standards set by zone?
Should there be a two-step review process (separate from the CPP) for projects at the
DRB?
Should the code be revised to require articulation on some projects, e.g. where two
story elements are proposed and along street frontage? How can this be codified
without unduly stifling creative design?
Do the DRB process and the DROs need more codified specifics to reduce the amount of
subjectivity? Would handouts with key DROs given to DRB members and meeting
participants be helpful?
Many perceive that the DRB process has become unnecessarily adversarial—how can
this be addressed? Would information booklets, online assistance, and the like help?
Should the role of DRB members include educating, explaining, and helping participants
understand and navigate the process?
Should the rules on basements be revised, including: Is there a problem? Should a
percentage be counted as FAR? Should basements be limited to the building footprint?
Should parking standards be applied?
Should the code set standards for impervious surfaces? It was noted that storm water
rules already address this issue.
Are high ceilings and “ghost floors” a bulk and mass problem that should be addressed?
Would addition of a hillside overlay zone for the R-1-10 hillside area be a means to
better preserve this area’s rustic character?
February 16, 2016
Item 13B
COMMENTS AND IMPRESSIONS [These reflect my personal comments and impressions and
not necessarily the views of the council or the committee]
The meeting was well run and productive. I think the committee is in a good position to
summarize this most recent input and add it to its cumulative listing of issues/problems with
reasonable confidence that all perspectives have been heard, that the list is reasonably
complete, and that the committee is ready to begin the next stage of its work—identification of
potential solutions.
2
February 16, 2016
Item 13B
REÇEEVED
'
Salah M. Hassanein
FEB 1 2010
23L8 Ocean Front
Citv of Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 920L4
Services
T: 858 792-5454 F: 858 792-4L03 Administrátive
DePt'
February t6,2016
To: The City Council of Del Mar
The Traffic Parking Advisory Committee
Lady Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Re: Monetizing Beach Front Properties
I understand you are considering
utilizing the beach access adjacent to my home
for the above purpose.
I have been diagnosed as a stroke and heart failure
candidate. My doctors' names
phone
and
numbers can be made available to you. lf the stroke or heart failure
occurs, I have been instructed to go immediately to the Hospital Emergency.
am concerned that, if the parking idea is a good one, cars will be waiting on the
street for access and block my exit from my home. Waiting is a risk to my life
which I cannot take. lf I cannot get to the Emergency Room immediately, the
results could be dire and my life further compromised.
I
I need, if you proceed
with the concept, for you to guarantee that my access and
exit from my home are not in any way blocked at any time all day and night.
Thank you.
lah
1
net
February 16, 2016
Item 13BB
MEETING REPORT FROM DWIGHT WORDEN
MEETING: Double Track Committee Liaisons with SANDAG Rep
DATE:
Feb 4, 2016
Council liaisons Dwight Worden and Sherryl Parks met with Planning Director Kathy Garcia and
SANDAG project manager Linda Culp on February 4 to receive an update on the San Dieguito
Double track, bridge replacement, and seasonal rail platform project. The federal
environmental review has been completed with a FONSI (finding of no significant impact).
SANDAG reported it has done what it can to address the concerns expressed by Del Mar even
when Del Mar’s concerns did not trigger mitigation requirements under NEPA.
The project as currently designed includes two 1,000 foot long 12 foot wide passenger
platforms. There are two platforms: one for northbound, one for southbound, on the outside of the
tracks, to the north, to move them as far as possible from adjoining homes. Trains will be
instructed to pull as far north as possible when stopping at the platform. The existing berm to
the north will be removed. The new bridge will be 1600 feet long (old bridge is 1100 feet) and 8
feet higher (SANDAG reports the added height is necessary to accommodate sea level rise and
future flood conditions). The new bridge will have fewer pilings and will be better designed to
accommodate river flow. There will be no elevators; instead ramps and stairs, all on the east
leading to the Fairgrounds parking lot. There are ramps on the west side, however they do not exit to
the west, they cross under the tracks to exit to the east. There will be no access to the west/beach
side.
There will be trash controls on the platform, including receptacles and a small curb to prevent
trash from blowing off the platform. Design details including platform, lighting, and sound
amplification are yet to be developed, but SANDAG reports it will include Del Mar’s expressed
suggestions to the extent practicable.
The closest home is about 400 feet away. SANDAG reports that noise modeling is required
when a home is within 200 feet, but SANDAG did noise modeling anyway and documented a
low to zero noise impact to neighbors. There will be an undercrossing for pedestrians and
bicycles on the south of the bridge to accommodate Del Mar’s existing trail. The Coast to Crest
trail undercrossing is proposed to be accommodated separately on the north of the river, but it
is not shown on the current design. Stevens Creek will also be revised/relocated.
The total project cost is about $180 million. Currently the project is working up plans to the 60%
design level at which point the details of lighting, etc. will be available for review and SANDAG
will conduct further review with Del Mar and Solana Beach. At present there is no identified
1
February 16, 2016
Item 13C
funding source for construction. SANDAG reports that the recent repairs to the existing bridge
should last for some time and it is not known when the new project will be construction
funded.
More on the project can be found here:
http://www.keepsandiegomoving.com/Lossan/lossan_san_dieguito_double_track.aspx
COMMENTS AND IMPRESSIONS [These reflect my personal comments and impressions and
not necessarily the views of the council or the committee]
When SANDAG has the 60% design plans completed would be a good time for the Double Track
and Lagoon Committees to revisit this project and attempt to negotiate design details. The 60%
design phase completion is expected sometime near the end of the year. At present, the
environmental review is completed but there is still some opportunity to work with SANDAG on
details to improve the situation from Del Mar’s perspective. But, those details can best be
addressed when the 60% design plans are available for review.
Also, the committees can discuss when and how the community can be updated on the project.
It is my recommendation that this occur when the 60% design plans are available.
2
February 16, 2016
Item 13C