Table of Contents Agenda.pdf 2 Item 01 - Proclamation - Friends of the Powerhouse.pdf 10 Item 02 - Proclamation - Municipal Clerk Week.pdf 11 Item 07 - Minutes.pdf 12 Item 08 - List of Demands.pdf 22 Item 10 - Dial-A-Ride Agreement Amendment.pdf 42 Item 11 - Sustainability Advisory Board Appointment.pdf 51 Item 12 - City Hall - Commissioning consultants.pdf 57 Item 13 - Initial Consideration - ADR15-041 (Yayla).pdf 59 Item 14 - Reintroduction Plastic Bag Ban.pdf 114 Item 15 - City Hall - Project Status Update - 4-28-16.pdf 141 Item 16 - Encroachment Permit 16-010 (Rubin, San Dieguito Dr).pdf 142 Item 17 - City Sales Tax.pdf 157 Item 18 - Sidewalk, Street, Drainage Project Update.pdf 170 Item 19 - 1996 Camino del Mar Streetscape Plan Update Process.pdf 174 Item 20 - Notification of Solid Waste Collection Rate & Tipping Fee Increases for FY16-17.pdf 180 Item 21 - Discussion on Motorcycle Noise.pdf 192 Item 22 - Council Liaison Committee Reports.pdf 195 Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda Del Mar Communications Center 240 Tenth Street, Del Mar, California
Sherryl Parks Regular Meeting Mayor Monday, May 2, 2016 at 6:00 p.m.
It is the intention of your City Council to be receptive to your Terry Sinnott concerns about your community. Your participation in local Deputy Mayor government will assure a responsible and efficient City of Del Mar. Al Corti Regular Meetings of the City Council are held on the first and Council Member third Mondays of the month beginning at 6:00 p.m. Council meetings are occasionally held on the second Mondays and/or Don Mosier special meetings called. For further information regarding the Council Member scheduling of meetings or meeting agendas, check the City’s website at www.delmar.ca.us, or call the Administrative Services Department at (858) 755-9313. Any electronic Dwight Worden presentations must be received before 9 a.m. on the date of the Council Member Council meeting. No PowerPoint presentations can be loaded during the meeting.
Scott W. Huth You may sign up on the City’s website for email notifications of City Manager public meetings. A full City Council agenda packet with all backup information is available at City Hall, the Del Mar Library, Leslie E. Devaney and on the City’s web site the Friday before each Council meeting. Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted City Attorney to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at City Hall at 1050 Camino del Connie Smith-Ball Mar during normal business hours and are posted online as “Red Dots.” Deputy City Clerk Consent Calendar: Items on the Consent Calendar will be Kathleen A. Garcia enacted in accordance with the recommendations in one motion Planning and Community unless removed from the Consent Calendar by Council, staff, or a member of the public. If you wish to remove an item from the Development Director Consent Calendar, please submit a “Speaker Slip” to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Removed items will be considered after the motion to approve the Consent Calendar.
How to Speak at a Council Meeting: Anyone may address the City Council for up to three minutes, at the Mayor’s discretion, on items on the Agenda. Please submit a “Speakers Slip” to the City Clerk prior to the Mayor announcing the agenda item. The forms are located near the door at the rear of the Meeting Room. The Agenda item number being addressed should appear on the speaker slip. The Mayor will call you forward at the appropriate time. To speak on a City-related concern that is NOT on the Agenda, please complete a “Speaker Slip” and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the beginning of the meeting. You will be called forward during the ORAL COMMUNICATIONS portion of the agenda.
When addressing the Council, please step up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Each speaker will have up to three minutes to speak at the discretion of the Mayor. Whenever possible, lengthy testimony should be presented to the Council in writing and only pertinent points presented orally. Agenda items MAY be addressed in any order at the discretion of the Mayor.
Special Needs: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Administrative Services Department at 1050 Camino del Mar, or by calling (858) 755-9313. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
As a courtesy to all meeting attendees, please set cellular phones to silent mode and engage in conversations outside the Council Chambers.
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting May 02, 2016 Agenda Page 2
I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Each person wishing to speak before the City Council on any matter shall submit a “Speaker Slip” to the City Clerk. When the Mayor recognizes you, please come forward and state your name and address. Each speaker will have up to three (3) minutes to speak at the discretion of the Mayor and you may be asked clarifying questions about your issue. Your information may be received, placed on a future agenda, or referred to the City Manager by the City Council. State law generally precludes the City Council from discussing or acting upon any topic presented during oral communications that is not described on the posted agenda. NOTE: THERE IS A TIME LIMIT OF 30 MINUTES FOR THIS SECTION OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS AND EACH SPEAKER WILL BE HEARD IN THE ORDER OF THE SUBMISSION OF THEIR SPEAKER SLIP. SPEAKERS WHO HAVE TURNED IN A SPEAKER SLIP PRIOR TO THE TIME ORAL COMMUNICATIONS WAS CALLED ON THE AGENDA, BUT WERE NOT HEARD DURING THE INITIAL TIME PERIOD SHALL BE CALLED TO SPEAK AT THE END OF THE AGENDA.
IV. GOVERNING BODY ACTIONS AND COMMENTS
V. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
VI. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
1. Proclamation of Annual Del Mar Non-Profit Awareness: Friends of the Powerhouse
Recommended Action: Announce the Proclamation.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1201-5
2. Proclamation for Municipal Clerk’s Week
Recommended Action: Announce the Proclamation.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1201-5
3. Proclamation for Deputy City Clerk Connie Smith-Ball, in Recognition of her Retirement from the City of Del Mar.
Recommended Action: Announce the Proclamation.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1201-5
4. Proclamation for Planning Manager Adam Birnbaum, in Recognition of his Retirement from the City of Del Mar.
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting May 02, 2016 Agenda Page 3
Recommended Action: Announce the Proclamation.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1201-5
5. Proclamation from County of San Diego Supervisor Roberts for Live Well San Diego Partnership
Recommended Action: Receive the Proclamation
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1201-5
6. Presentation regarding the 2016 San Diego County Fair and update on 22nd District Agricultural Association activities.
Recommended Action: Receive the Presentation by Fairgrounds representative and on 22nd District Agricultural Association activites.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1502-10
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the City Council or the public so requests, in which event, the item will be considered separately at the end of the agenda.
7. Approval of Minutes: April 18, 2016 Regular and Special Meeting
Recommended Action: Approve Minutes.
Reference: Clerk’s Minutes Book
8. Ratification of List of Demands, dated May 2, 2016
Recommended Action: Ratify the Lists of Demands.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 201-3
9. Waiver of Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
Recommended Action: Waive reading of ordinances.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-4
10. Del Mar Community Connections Dial-A-Ride Agreement Modification and Amend the Fiscal Years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 Operating and Capital Budget
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting May 02, 2016 Agenda Page 4
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the City Manager to enter into a modified letter agreement (Attachment B) with Del Mar Community Connections (“DMCC”) a modified letter agreement (Attachment B) with Del Mar Community Connections (“DMCC”) to provide the Dial-A-Ride (“DAR”) Taxi Voucher Program on the City’s behalf and authorization to amend the Fiscal Years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 Operating and Capital Budget to appropriate $5,250 for Fiscal Year 2015-2016 and $4,900 for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 from the General Fund.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 406-1
11. Appointment to the Sustainability Advisory Board
Recommended Action: Council Liaisons to the Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB) recommend that the City Council appoint Andy Friedl to serve a second four-year term, expiring May 1, 2020.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-5
12. Authorization for Professional Services Contract for Commissioning Services for the City Hall/Town Hall Project
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Professional Services Agreement with a commissioning consultant for the provision of commissioning services for the new City Hall/Town Hall Project.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 307-7, 406-1
VIII INITIAL CONSIDERATION
13. Initial Consideration of an Appeal of the Design Review Board’s Decision Conditionally Approving Administrative Design Review Permit ADR15-041 for Private Improvements in the Rimini Road Public Right- Of-Way Project Appellant/Applicant: Gala Yayla Project Location: 545 Rimini Road (APN 300-390-09)
Recommended Action: That the City Council review the appeal request and not set the matter for a de novo hearing, thereby upholding the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Administrative Design Review permit ADR15-041 for previously-constructed entry columns and walls, driveway columns, and planter walls in the Rimini Road public right-of-way (Attachment A). The Design Review Board’s approval of this permit included two special conditions requiring the walls and columns be lowered to a maximum height of 42 inches and landscaping be replaced with a low-growing variety not to exceed a mature height of one-foot above grade.
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting May 02, 2016 Agenda Page 5
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 301-12
IX PUBLIC HEARINGS
14. Reintroduction of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 11.36 to the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) to Prohibit the Use of Single-Use Plastic Carry- Out Bags
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council reintroduce an amended ordinance (Attachment A) to create DMMC Chapter 11.36 to prohibit the use of single-use plastic carry-out bags and implement other provisions related to other types of carry-out bags.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-4, 401-9
X CITY COUNCIL OTHER BUSINESS
15. Community Forum & Status Report/Direction on the City Hall/Town Hall Project TIME CERTAIN - 6:30 P.M.
This is an open forum for comments by community members regarding the City Hall/Town Hall Project. Community members are provided an opportunity to speak for up to 3 minutes to share their comments about the project, with the overall Forum not to exceed 30 minutes. In addition, the Council Subcommittees for the City Hall/Town Hall Project and staff may provide updates, status reports or other information on the Project for City Council discussion and direction. Any electronic presentations must be received before 9 a.m. on the date of the Council meeting. No PowerPoint presentations can be loaded during the meeting.
City Council Sub-Committee Assignments for the City Hall/Town Hall Project:
Design Process Corti/Mosier Cost and Financing Corti/Sinnott Sustainability Features Mosier/Worden Community Outreach Parks/Sinnott Relocation City Manager
Recommended Action: Provide report, discuss and obtain direction.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 307-7
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting May 02, 2016 Agenda Page 6
16. A Request to Authorize Fencing, and Pedestrian and Vehicle Gates Located Within the San Dieguito Drive Public Right-of-Way Adjacent to 2168 San Dieguito Drive (Encroachment Permit EP16-010) Applicant: Josh and Ashley Rubin (APN 299-072-26)
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to conditionally approve the Encroachment Permit (EP) request subject to the suggested conditions of approval in Attachment A. The suggested conditions would require the wall and gates not to exceed a maximum height of 42 inches and a covenant be recorded on the property acknowledging the owner’s responsibilities associated with the encroachments.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 802-1
17. Potential City of Del Mar One-Percent Sales Tax
Recommended Action: Receive report, discuss, and provide direction as to whether the City should place a one-percent sales tax on the ballot.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 201-10. 402-8
18. Sidewalk, Street, and Drainage Project Update
Recommended Action: Staff requests that the City Council receive the Sidewalk, Street, and Drainage Project update and direct staff on design elements for various project segments.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 901-2, 901-5, 803-3
19. 1996 Camino del Mar Streetscape Plan Update Process
Recommended Action: Staff requests that the City Council receive the report from the project architects for the 1996 Camino del Mar Streetscape Plan Update, and direct staff and the architectural team on future direction for the update and associated public outreach process.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 306-1, 901-12
20. Notification of Solid Waste Collection Rate and Tipping Fee Increases for Fiscal Year 2016-2017
Recommended Action: Receive the report.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 906-9, 204-6
21. Discussion on Motorcycle Noise
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting May 02, 2016 Agenda Page 7
Recommended Action: Receive report and provide direction to staff on which strategies to implement to reduce motorcycle noise.
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1403-2
XII. COUNCIL PRIORITIES – REPORTS
22. A Council member assigned as a Liaison to a Subcommittee or Regional Organization may make a written or oral report. State law precludes the Council from commenting on, discussing, or acting on a report, unless the item of business within the report is described in this agenda.
A. 22nd District Agricultural Association - Community Relations Committee (Corti/Mosier) B. Ad-Hoc Development Review Process Citizens’ Advisory Committee (Mosier/Worden) Meeting Report for April 19, 2016 Recommended Action: Receive memo. Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-5 C. Ad-Hoc San Dieguito Double Track Project Committee (Parks/Worden) D. Business Support Advisory Committee (Corti/Mosier) E. Capital Improvement Projects Subcommittee (Mosier/Corti) F. City Hall Project Subcommittee (Corti/Mosier) G. CSA-17 Ambulance District Advisory Board (Parks/Corti) H. Fairgrounds Master Plan/EIR Advisory Committee (Sinnott/Corti) I. Finance Committee (Corti/Sinnott) J. Fire Services Subcommittee (Sinnott/Parks) K. Housing Element Advisory Committee (Mosier/Worden) L. Human Resources Subcommittee (Corti/Sinnott) M. LAFCO Cities Advisory Committee (Corti/Parks) N. League of California Cities – San Diego Chapter (Corti/Parks) O. Legislative Advocacy Subcommittee (Mosier/Sinnott) P. North San Diego County Transit Development Board (NCTD) (Mosier/Corti) Q. Parks and Recreation Committee (Sinnott/Parks) R. Planning Process Subcommittee (Corti/Mosier) S. Regional Solid Waste Association (Sinnott/Mosier) T. San Diego Association of Governments (Sinnott/Worden) Direction on SANDAG ballot measure regarding ½ cent sales tax increase. Recommended Action: Provide direction to Council representative. Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1506-1 U. San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Commission (Parks/Minicilli) V. San Dieguito Lagoon Committee (Mosier/Worden) Meeting Report for April 20, 2016 Recommended Action: Receive memo. Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-5
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting May 02, 2016 Agenda Page 8
W. San Dieguito River Valley Regional Open Space JPA (Mosier/Worden) X. Sea-Level Rise Stakeholder-Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) (Mosier/Worden) Y. Shores Advisory Committee (Parks/Sinnott) Z. SONGS (San Onofre Nuclear Power Station) Subcommittee (Mosier/Worden) AA. Sustainability Advisory Board (Mosier/Worden) BB. Traffic and Parking Advisory Committee (Parks/Worden) Meeting Report for April 19, 2016 Recommended Action: Receive memo. Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-5 CC. Other Committee-Subcommittee Reports
XIII UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS
The following topics/items are planned for upcoming agendas. Please watch our web site: www.delmar.ca.us for City Council Agendas. Final agendas are posted at City Hall 72 hours in advance of the meetings and are also posted on our web site with the accompanying report. Please note that the wording for topics listed below may change once the final agenda is published.
May/June 2016 Report on Fairgrounds Economic Impact Study Law Enforcement Review Consultants Report?? (CONSULTANTS REPORT? Utility Undergrounding Study Report Adoption of the Climate Action Plan Award of Contract for Demolition of City Hall Extension of Short Term Rental Moratorium Ordinance
XIII ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATION
I, Connie Smith-Ball, Deputy City Clerk for the City of Del Mar, hereby certify that a copy of this agenda was posted at City Hall on April 28, 2016 at approximately 5:30 p.m.
______April 28, 2016______Connie Smith-Ball Date
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us ØKOCLfl14rfinOr,l'
ANNUAL DEL MAR NON-PROFIT AWARENESS FRIENDS OF THE POWERHOUSE
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar recognizes the importance and contributions of local and regional charitable non-profit organizations, which are committed to serving the educatiónå1, cultural, civic, health, religious, human service, recreational, philanthropic, environmental, and other diverse needs of Del Mar residents; and
NOW THEREFORE BE tT RESOLVED that I, sherryl Parks, Mayor of the city of Del Mar, orì behalf of the entire City Council, hereby recognize Friends of the powerhouse for their many contributions, and encourage all Del Marians to recognize the positive impact non-prófit organizations have on the quality of life of the citizens of Del Mar.
Dated: May 2,2016 4 f^ry' Sherryl Parks, r
1 May 2, 2016 Item 01 "ROCIATVIAIIONMUNICIPAL CLERKS WEEK MAY 1 - MAY 7, 2016
WHEREAS, the Office of the Municipal Clerk, a time honored and vital part of local government exists throughout the world; and
wHEREAS, the office of the Municipal clerk is the oldest among public servants; and'
WHEREAS, the Office of p rovides the Professional link ctes of government at other between the citizens, the I ing, bo$ies¡ levels; and
WHEREAS, ici d r ml I of their neutralitY and impartialitY, re S of WHER lerk AS on functions local govern -and üü of WHER Mu con to imp ea inistration the affairs of e,,Offi Muni rough pa in education provlnce, programs, sem ars, and. the annu al rh , county and inte or:ganizations; . tì ishments of the WHE it. approp r¡ atéi thåt'uËieco g n ize the Office of the Muni
NOW THERE Del Mar, on behalf of through l{lay 7 ,20'16, as Del Mai Administrative Serv vital services they Perform represent.
Dated: May 2,2016 4 f^M Sherryl Parks, r
1 May 2, 2016 Item 02 MINUTES Del Mar City Council Meeting Monday, April 18, 2016 Del Mar Communications Center 240 Tenth Street, Del Mar, California
The minutes set forth the actions taken by the City Council on the matters stated. Audio/video recordings of the City Council proceedings are retained for a period of ten years, in accordance with the City’s Records Retention Schedule. Audio/video recordings, as well as written materials presented to the City Council, including Red Dots (materials provided to the City Council after the agenda was published), are available on the City’s website at www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter or by contacting the Administrative Services Department at (858) 755-9313. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL – 6:03 P.M.
All Council Members were present.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Parks led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Victor Brown, field representative to Assistant to the Speaker Emeritus of the Assembly Toni G. Atkins, 78th District, introduced himself to the public and Council.
Andy Menshek, Marsolan Avenue, Solana Beach, spoke regarding excessive noise pollution related to motorcycles with modified exhaust systems. He suggested that Council address the issue in concert with the City of Solana Beach. He spoke about noise monitoring and the amount of reported violations.
Richard Levak, 23rd Street, spoke regarding noise pollution related to motorcycles with modified exhaust systems. He indicated that he collected 70 signatures on a petition that he submitted to Council. He requested that Council put the item on the agenda and address the issue through the noise ordinance.
Leily Rezvani, Russet Street, San Diego, spoke about the preservation of the San Dieguito Lagoon and the benefits that nature has on health.
1 May 2, 2016 Item 07 DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 18, 2016 PAGE 2
Lew Dominy, 23rd Street, spoke regarding noise pollution in the residential area related to motorcycles with modified exhaust systems. He suggested that the City measure the noise levels. He also suggested the use of signs with messages to help educate motorists that they are in a residential zone.
GOVERNING BODY ACTIONS AND COMMENTS
Council Member Worden reported that he would be attending the upcoming SANDAG meetings as Del Mar’s representative in lieu of Deputy Mayor Sinnott. He asked that an item be placed on the next agenda so that Council could provide direction on Del Mar’s position on the half-cent sales tax increase that SANDAG is considering placing on the November ballot.
Deputy Mayor Sinnott thanked Planning Manager Birnbaum and Deputy City Clerk Smith-Ball for their years of service to the City of Del Mar and congratulated them on their retirement.
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Huth reported that through negotiations with the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) and the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), MWD has determined not to implement their proposed increased pricing structure, and instead will form a working group to work on an alternate rate structure for future consideration.
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
ITEM 1 PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING RACHEL REED – MEALS ON WHEELS GREATER SAN DIEGO, INC. (Clerk’s File No. 1201-5)
Mayor Parks presented Rachel Reed with the Proclamation.
ITEM 2 PROCLAMATION HONORING IVAN GAYLER AND NATURE AND CULTURE INTERNATIONAL ON EARTH DAY 2016 (Clerk’s File No. 1201-5)
Council Member Worden presented Ivan Gayler with the Proclamation.
2 May 2, 2016 Item 07 DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 18, 2016 PAGE 3
CONSENT CALENDAR
Deputy City Clerk Smith-Ball read the titles and recommendations for Consent Calendar Items 3-12, noting Red Dot correspondence for Items 9 and 11.
Mayor Parks removed Item 7 from the Consent Calendar.
Council Member Corti removed Item 10 from the Consent Calendar for questions.
Council Member Worden proposed an amendment to the Minutes of April 4, 2016, regarding Item 11, to add a statement clarifying his position regarding short-term rentals in the residential zones. Council Member Worden also removed Items 8, 11 and 12 from the Consent Calendar for questions.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WORDEN, SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR SINNOTT, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 3 THROUGH 6 AND ITEMS 8 THROUGH 12. MOTION PASSED 5-0.
ITEM 3 APPROVAL OF APRIL 4, 2016 REGULAR AND SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES (Clerk’s Minutes Book)
Council approved the minutes, as amended, on Consent.
ITEM 4 RATIFICATION OF LIST OF DEMANDS, DATED APRIL 18, 2016 (Clerk’s File No. 201-3)
Council ratified the List of Demands, on Consent.
ITEM 5 WAIVER OF READING OF ORDINANCES ON AGENDA (Clerk’s File No. 401-4)
Council waived reading of ordinances, on Consent.
ITEM 6 SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 11.13 OF THE DEL MAR MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PROPER MAINTENANCE OF TREES AND PLANTS (Clerk’s File No. 401-4, 401-9)
3 May 2, 2016 Item 07 DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 18, 2016 PAGE 4
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WORDEN, SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR SINNOTT, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 914:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 11.13 OF THE DEL MAR MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PROPER MAINTENANCE OF TREES AND PLANTS. MOTION PASSED 5-0, on Consent. ITEM 8 SEWER, WATER, AND ARTERIAL PAVING (SWAP) PROJECT CONTRACT CHANGES (Clerk’s File No. 803-3)
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WORDEN, SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR SINNOTT, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2016-26, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CHANGES TO THE CONTRACT WITH PAL GENERAL ENGINEERING, INC. FOR THE SEWER, WATER, AND ARTERIAL PAVING PROJECT AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEARS 2015-2016 AND 2016-2017 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET.” MOTION PASSED 5-0, on Consent.
ITEM 9 CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION TO WAIVE PERMITTING FEES REQUIRED FOR TEMPORARY RELOCATION OF THE FARMERS MARKET DURING CITY HALL CONSTRUCTION (Clerk’s File No. 103-4)
Council authorized the waiver of fees associated with the permitting process for the temporary relocation of the Farmers Market during construction of City Hall, on Consent.
ITEM 10 CONSIDERATION OF INSTALLATION OF CANOPY AND STORAGE SHED AT THE SHORES PARK COMMUNITY BUILDING AND WAIVER OF APPLICABLE CITY FEES (Clerk’s File No. 307-8)
Council approved the request by Del Mar Community Connections to install a canopy, subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board, and storage shed at the City-owned Community Building, and waived fees for the Design Review Board permit process, on Consent. ITEM 11 AUTHORIZATION FOR SPECIALTY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS FOR THE CITY HALL/TOWN HALL PROJECT (Clerk’s File No. 307-7)
4 May 2, 2016 Item 07 DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 18, 2016 PAGE 5
Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate and execute Professional Services Agreements with specialty design consultants for the provision of audio visual services, systems furniture design, kitchen design, structured cabling/server room design and security & access control for the new City Hall/Town Hall project, on Consent. ITEM 12 UPDATE ON SIGNAGE AMNESTY PROGRAM (Clerk’s File No. 303-2)
Council received the update, on Consent.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
ITEM 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING A PARTERNERSHIP WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR THE LIVE WELL SAN DIEGO PROGRAM (Clerk’s File No. 1503- 8)
Chuck Matthews, Director of Health and Human Services for the County of San Diego, provided a report and PowerPoint presentation on the Live Well San Diego Program.
Mayor Parks opened the item to public comment. There being no one to speak, she closed the item to public comment.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MOSIER, SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR SINNOTT, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2016-25, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR THE LIVE WELL SAN DIEGO PROGRAM”. MOTION PASSED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
CITY COUNCIL OTHER BUSINESS
ITEM 13 COMMUNITY FORUM & STATUS REPORT/DIRECTION ON THE CITY HALL/TOWN HALL PROJECT AND CITY COUNCIL SUB-COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS FOR THE CITY HALL/TOWN HALL PROJECT (Clerk’s File No. 307-7)
5 May 2, 2016 Item 07 DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 18, 2016 PAGE 6
No Speakers. Council Subcommittee members provided brief updates related to the project. City Manager Huth provided information on relocation to a temporary City Hall location.
Council thanked staff for their efforts surrounding relocation.
ITEM 14 PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS AND POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGET (Clerk’s File No. 1101-2)
Jim Armstrong and Greg Nelson, from Ralph Andersen & Associates, provided the presentation of Law Enforcement Options and Police Department Budget.
Mayor Parks opened the Item to public comment and the following people spoke:
Jim Benedict, Christy Lane Barry Entous, 11th Street Glenn Sherman, Luneta Drive Bud Emerson, Klish Way Dan Quirk, 23rd Street
Mayor Parks closed the Item to public comment.
Council received the presentation from Ralph Andersen & Associates on Law Enforcement Option Study and Update of Costs for a Stand- alone Police Department. Council provided direction to staff and the Finance Committee to review information and return with a recommendation for additional community outreach in order to obtain feedback on the best option to address Priority 3 and 4 Sheriff Department response calls.
RECESS AND CALL TO ORDER – 8:40 PM
Mayor Parks recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m. and called it back to order at 8:52 p.m. All Council Members were present.
ITEM 15 FINANCE COMMITTEE PRESENTATION ON UNDERGROUNDING FINANCING (Clerk’s File No. 401-5)
6 May 2, 2016 Item 07 DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 18, 2016 PAGE 7
Finance Committee representative Bud Emerson provided information on a potential funding mechanism for the undergrounding of utilities and other projects. He shared the Finance Committee recommendation which is for Council to look at ways for the public who enjoy the services that the City provides, to help pay for those services. He made the suggestion that Council consider the addition of a one-percent sales tax. He requested that Council determine if the public agrees and take steps to place it on the November 2016 ballot. Finance Committee member Dan Quirk supported the Finance Committee recommendation.
Council discussed the proposed SANDAG half-cent sales tax increase that may be on the ballot in November and its effect on the City’s ability to increase the sales tax further.
Mayor Parks opened the item to public comment and the following person spoke:
Jim Benedict, Christy Lane
Mayor Parks closed the item to public comment.
Council received the report from Finance Committee representative Bud Emerson, and provided direction to further investigate placing a measure on the November 2016 ballot proposing a 1% sales tax increase as a method to fund non-specified improvement projects and the dynamic of having the SANDAG TransNet half-cent sales tax increase on the November ballot as well. ITEM 16 OVERVIEW OF DROUGHT RESPONSE EFFORTS TO DATE (Clerk’s File No. 907-6)
Management Services Director Crane provided the staff report and PowerPoint presentation.
Council received and filed the report which summarized the City of Del Mar’s drought response efforts since June 1, 2015. Council received a status report on community-wide water savings to date. COUNCIL PRIORITIES – REPORTS
A. 22nd District Agricultural Association - Community Relations Committee (Corti/Mosier)
7 May 2, 2016 Item 07 DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 18, 2016 PAGE 8
Action Taken: Council Member Corti provided an oral report on negotiations regarding the KAABOO contract and efforts by the 22nd District Agricultural Association and KAABOO to reduce future noise violations. He also indicated that the Draft Economic Impact Study is now complete and will be circulated to Council. He requested that comments be forwarded to Management Services Director Crane. (Clerk’s File No. 1502-10) B. Ad-Hoc Development Review Process Citizens’ Advisory Committee (Mosier/Worden) C. Ad-Hoc San Dieguito Double Track Project Committee (Parks/Worden) D. Business Support Advisory Committee (Corti/Mosier) E. Capital Improvement Projects Subcommittee (Mosier/Corti) F. City Hall Project Subcommittee (Corti/Mosier) G. CSA-17 Ambulance District Advisory Board (Parks/Corti) H. Fairgrounds Master Plan/EIR Advisory Committee (Sinnott/Corti) I. Finance Committee (Corti/Sinnott) J. Fire Services Subcommittee (Sinnott/Parks) K. Housing Element Advisory Committee (Mosier/Worden) L. Human Resources Subcommittee (Corti/Sinnott) M. LAFCO Cities Advisory Committee (Corti/Parks) N. League of California Cities – San Diego Chapter (Corti/Parks) O. Legislative Advocacy Subcommittee (Mosier/Sinnott) P. North San Diego County Transit Development Board (NCTD) (Mosier/Corti) Q. Parks and Recreation Committee (Sinnott/Parks) R. Planning Process Subcommittee (Corti/Mosier) S. Regional Solid Waste Association (Sinnott/Mosier) T. San Diego Association of Governments (Sinnott/Worden) U. San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Commission (Parks/Minicilli) V. San Dieguito Lagoon Committee (Mosier/Worden) W. San Dieguito River Valley Regional Open Space JPA (Mosier/Worden) X. Sea-Level Rise Stakeholder-Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) (Mosier/Worden) Y. Shores Advisory Committee (Parks/Sinnott) Z. SONGS (San Onofre Nuclear Power Station) Subcommittee (Mosier/Worden) AA. Sustainability Advisory Board (Mosier/Worden) BB. Traffic and Parking Advisory Committee (Parks/Worden) Recommendation for TPAC Review of San Dieguito Intersection Improvement EIR CC. Other Committee-Subcommittee Reports
8 May 2, 2016 Item 07 DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 18, 2016 PAGE 9
ADJOURNMENT – 9:43 P.M.
Mayor Parks adjourned the meeting at 9:43 P.M.
______CONNIE SMITH-BALL, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
ATTEST:
______SHERRYL PARKS, MAYOR
9 May 2, 2016 Item 07 MINUTES Del Mar City Council Special Meeting Monday, April 18, 2016 Del Mar Communications Center 240 Tenth Street, Del Mar, California
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL – 5:03 P.M.
Mayor Parks, Deputy Mayor Sinnott, Council Members Corti, Mosier and Worden.
City Manager Huth PUBLIC COMMENT – CLOSED SESSION – 5:03 P.M.
Mayor Parks opened the items to public comment; there being no one to speak, Mayor Parks closed the item to public comment.
Mayor Parks announced the authority for the Closed Session.
CLOSED SESSION – 5:03 P.M.
a. Public Employee Performance Evaluation Authority: Gov. Code Section 54957 (b)(1) Position: City Manager Reportable Action: None
ADJOURNMENT – 5:55 P.M.
Mayor Parks adjourned the meeting at 5:55 p.m.
______CONNIE SMITH-BALL, Deputy City Clerk
ATTEST:
______SHERRYL PARKS, Mayor
10 May 2, 2016 Item 07 LIST OF DEMANDS
CITY OF DEL MAR for Gity Council Meeting May 2, 2016
Regular Vendor Payments (Attached) 4t15116,4122116 $ set,385.31 Voids Wires and EFTs 4t15t16,4122116 541,014.53 Federal & State Taxes 4115116 33,275.36 PERS Retirement (EFT) 4t151'16 36,469.25 PARS Retirement (EFT) 4t15t16 1,853.30 ICMA - Defened Comp (Wire) 4t15t16 10,937.33 Cafeteria Plan 4t15116 562.55 Total $ 955,497.63
by: Approved by: g- hufiuto"r- McBroome Sherryl Parks Director of Fi nance/Treasurer Mayor
Date: Date 412512016
Attachments: Check Registers
1 May 2, 2016 Item 08 apGhklst FinalGheck List Page: I 0411412016 ll:0S:llAM City of Del Mar
BanK : gunion GENERALACCOUNT UNION B¡ Gheck # Date Vendor lnvoice lnv Date Descrintion Amount Paid Check Total 115864 4t15t2016 12m01 l2MlLESOUT.COM 21574 41112016 VIDEO STREAMING MAR 1,100.00 1,100.00 Voucher: 1 1 5864 115865 4t15t2016 attO2 AT&T 051 890 457100 3t31t2016 TELEPHONE MAR 31.90 31.90 Voucher: I 1 5865 115866 4t15t2016 azt02 p¿-IEC LANDSCAPING, INC. 0028824-lN 3t31t2016 LANDSCAPING SRVCS MAR 10,520.60 10,520.60 Voucher: 1 1 5866 115867 4t15t2016 bor05 BORTZ, DANIEL 04122016 4112t2016 REF DAMAGE DEP 4110116 800.00 800.00 Voucher: 1 1 5867 115868 411512016 bou02 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 82110107 4t5t2016 EMERGENCY SUPPLIES CS 230.04 230.04 Voucher: 1 I 5868 115869 4t15t2016 cal67 CALI FORNIA BUILDI NG STANTO4I 2201 6 4t12t2016 BLDG STANDARDS FEE 3Q 42.00 42.00 Voucher: 115869 115870 4t15t2016 cdwO1 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. CPZSOgO 4t5t2016 BACKUP SOFTWARE 1,718.00 1,718.00 Voucher: 1 1 5870 115871 4t15t2016 coaO1 COAST WASTE MANAGEMEN 251 -50579 4t12t2016 TRASH/RECYCLE MAR 31,760.78 31,760.78 Voucher: 115871 115872 4t15t2016 corl1 CORO DATA M EDIA STO RAG E D5127 2522 3t31t2016 STORAGE SRVCS MAR 147.69 147.69 Voucher: 115872
115873 4t15t2016 cor07 CORO DATA RECORDS MGT I ]. RS4228826 4t5t2016 STORAGE SRVCS MAR 122.97 122.97 Voucher: I 1 5873 115874 4t15t2016 cou01 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 04112016 4111t2016 PARKING BAIL MAR 10,219.50 10,219.50 Voucher: 115874 115875 4t15t2016 del76 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL 49632723 4t9t2016 CANON COPIER CHAPR 724.12 724.12 Voucher: 115875 115876 411512016 dep08 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 159482 4t6t2016 FINGERPRINTAPPS CS 32.00 32.00 Voucher: 115876 115877 4t15t2016 dep07 DEPT OF CONSERVATION 04122016 4t1212016 SMIP FEES 3Q 156.05 156.05 Voucher: 115877 115878 4t15t2016 dixOl DIXIELINE LUMBER CO. 06-0110984 4t4t2016 PAINTING SUPPLIES CS 231.34 Voucher: 115878 06-0111316 4t6t2016 CLEANING SUPPLIES CS 192.81 06-0110677 4t1t2016 KITCHEN WINDOW RPR FIRE 49.81 473.96 115879 411512016 elc02 EL CAMINO RENTAL 500312-1 3t2512016 PARKING METER REPAIR 154.71 154.71 Voucher: 115879
Page: 1
2 May 2, 2016 Item 08 apChklst FinalGheck List Page= 2 0411412016 1l:03:114M City of Del Mar
Bank : qun¡on GENERAL ACCOUNT UNION B¡ (Continued) Gheck # Date Vendor lnvoice lnv Date Description Amount Paid Gheck Total 115880 4t15t2016 esg02 ESGIL CORPORATION 3128411116 4t4t2016 BLDG rNSP 3/28-411/16 5,307.46 5,307.46 Voucher: 1r5880 115881 4t15t2016 fed01 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 5-377-65531 41812016 SANDPIPALAIF FORMS 32.04 32.04 Voucher: 115881 115882 4t15t2016 gal02 GALLS LLC 005166415 4t4t2016 PRKG UNIFORM SHIRTS 188.93 188.93 Voucher: 115882 115883 4t15t2016 dhm01 GEORGE WALLIS 18543 4t4t2016 JANITORIAL SRVCSAPR 3,246.12 3,246.12 Voucher: 115883 115884 4t15t2016 qfoOl GFOA 0162001 3t31t2016 MBRSHP FY16-17 T MCBROO 160.00 160.00 Voucher: 115884 '115885 4t15t2016 int09 GREGORY G CONLEY 118 4t6t2016 21ST ST PUMP COMP MAINT 384.84 384.84 Voucher: 1 1 5885 115886 4t15t2016 hed01 HEDGES, CHRISTINAA 04122016 4t12t2016 REF DAMAGE DEP 418116 950.00 950.00 Voucher: 115886
115887 4t15t2016 hyd01 HYDRO-SCAPE PRODUCTS I ¡9563428.00 3t31t2016 RECLAIM WATER PROJ 75.19 75.19 Voucher: 115887 115888 4t15t2016 ips02 IPS GROUP INC 17299 3t31t2016 PRKG MTR TRANS FEEAPR 1,247.06 1,247.06 Voucher: 115888 115889 4t15t2016 mxl01 MCAFEE tNC 901608589 413t2016 SPAM FILTERAPR 138.45 138.45 Voucher: I 1 5889 115890 4t15t2016 no113 NORTH COUNTY DISPATCH JI2O16-101 4t1t2016 DISPATCH FIRE 4 Q 7,118.70 7,118.70 Voucher: 115890 115891 4t15t2016 offO3 oFFtcE DEPOT 832787995001 4t5t2016 OFFICE SUPPLIES FIN 143.50 Voucher: 115891 831842098001 3t30t2016 OFFICE SUPPLIES ADM SRV( 52.64 831410979001 3t29t2016 OFFICE SUPPLIES CH 49.1 0 831842123001 3t30t2016 OFFICE SUPPLIES ADM SRV( 1.83 829798719001 3t24t2016 RTRN OFFICE SUPPLIES CS -127.43 119.64 115892 4t15t2016 offO5 oFFIGETEAM 45449277 4t4t2016 TEMP SRVCS WK411116 1,027.57 1,027.57 Voucher: 115892 115893 4t15t2016 ost05 osTARr tNc 160431 4t1t2016 NETWRK MONITORIN G 41 1 -61 441.00 441.00 Voucher: 115893 115894 4t15t2016 pru01 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPP 130651322 411t2016 MATS PW 13.40 13.40 Voucher: 115894
115895 4115t2016 aqu01 RAYNE WATER CON DITION I N.OO3O42 313112016 WATER RENTAL FIRE 4Q 85.00 85.00 Voucher: 115895
Page:2
3 May 2, 2016 Item 08 apchkLst FinalGheck List Page: 3 0411412016 11:O3:llAM City of Del Mar
Bank: qunion GENERALACCOUNT UNION B¡ (Continued) Gheck # Date Vendor lnvoice lnv Date Descriotion Amount Paid Check Total 115896 4t15t2016 san03 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER,0406201 6 4t1'U2016 SDCWACAP CHRG 2112OCE 2,904.00 2,904.00 Voucher: 115896 115897 4t15t2016 sdg02 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 14202688922 4t4t2016 UTILITIES MAR 458.29 458.29 Voucher: 115897 115898 4t15t2016 san20 SAN DIEGUITO RIVER VALLE\04122016 4t12t2016 OFF TRACK MAR 945.29 945.29 Voucher: 1 1 5898 115899 4t15t2016 dar02 SANDRAS RAMEY 03166051 4t4t2016 DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL MAF 165.00 165.00 Voucher: 115899 115900 4115t2016 sem01 SMITH ENVI RONMENTAL MAN33O1 3t30t2016 PEST CONTROL MAR 135.00 135.00 Voucher: 115900 115901 4t15t2016 sol01 SOLANA BEACH, CITY OF 04122016 4t12t2016 OFF TRACK MAR 1,890.58 1,890.58 Voucher: 1 1 5901 115902 4t15t2016 spaO1 SPARKLETTS 2460395426876: 4t3t2016 WATER CH 110.05 Voucher: 115902 24574454262531 41312016 WATER FIN 49.61 2454343425632( 4t3t2016 WATER ITTRAILER 46.86 206.52 115903 4t15t2016 spo05 SPORTABOUT TOWN 04122016 4t12t2016 REFUND B/L 31.00 31.00 Voucher: 115903 115904 4t15t2016 mcc18 TABLESAND CHAIRS CORP 91246 4t4t2016 FOLDING CHAIRS CS 1,226.33 1,226.33 Voucher: I 1 5904 115905 4t15t2016 cen02 THE CENTRE FOR ORGANIZATCFOEI260 4t5t2016 TRAINING A PANDURO 775.00 775.00 Voucher: 115905 115906 411512016 towO4 TOWILL INC 03-953 313112016 SDGE EASEMENT CH PROJ 3,000.00 Voucher: 1 1 5906 03-954 313112016 CH SURVEY MAR 1,227.50 4,227.50
Sub totalfor GENERALACCOUNT UNION BANK: 91,734.23
a
Page: 3
4 May 2, 2016 Item 08 apchklst FinalCheck List Page:4 0411412016 ll:03:llAM Gity of Del Mar
: 43 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 91,734.23 TNq IT l6
Page:4
5 May 2, 2016 Item 08 No FINAL CIIECK LISTING AVAILAS],E *115907 through 115940 apchkLst TrialCheck List Page: I 0411412016 11:26:35AM Gity of Del Mar
Bank: qunion GENERALACGOUNT UNION B¡ Check# Date Vendor lnvoice lnv Date Descriotion Amount Paid Check Total 4115t2016 ame13 nn¡enlcnru PUBLtc woRKS A757780 3t14t2016 MBRSHP J BRIDE 209.00 209.00 4t15t2016 aqu02 AQUA-METRIC SALES COMPPOOoO2TO-I N 3t30t2016 WATER METERS 1,701.01 1,701.01 4115t2016 Ifl01 BALTIC LT ENTERPRISES INC3092 4t6t2016 LOCK RPR LFGRD RESTROO 576.92 576.92 .CATERPILLAR 4t15t2016 catO8 FINANCIAL SR\1 701 2233 3t29t2016 LOADER LEASE MAY 2,623.83 2,623.83 4t15t2016 del02 DEL MAR BLUE PRINT CO, IN(382048 4t7t2016 ANNUAL ST RESURFACING 64.80 64.80 4115t2016 del31 DELL MARKETING L.P. XJWXX8TR6 3t23t2016 MEMORY MODULE 891.56 891.56 4t15t2016 diaO1 DIAMOND ENVI RONMENTAL 50000667922 4t4t2016 RENTAL 225 gTH APR 241.04 241.04 4t15t2016 fer07 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES IN0548828 3131t2016 WAÏER MTR PARTS 318.60 318.60
4115t2016 atsO1 GARDA CL WEST LOCKBOX # 1 01 94395 4t1t2016 ARMORED SRVCS APR 2016 506.27 506.27 4t15t2016 dhm0l GEORGE WALLIS 18509 3t2812016 LINERS PW 103.36 103.36 4t15t2016 hvd01 4yoRo-scApE pRoDucrs tf 956951 5-00 4t5t2016 PVC PIPES PW 77.76 77.76 t 4t15t2016 ips02 1PS GROUP INC 16839 3t3t2016 PRKG MTR REPAIR 240.00 17228 3t31t2016 PAPER ROLLS CS 420.84 €60.84 '536.71 411512016 lou01 'tourettoN DrsrRrBUTING rt6B21 1 3t2812016 RESTROOM SUPPLIES PW 68260 4t5t2016 RESTROOM SUPPLIES PW 420.24 68230 3t30t2016 LINERS PW 82.40 68261 4t5t2016 RESTROOM SUPPLIES CS 71.87 1,111.22 411512016 nap01 NAPAAUTO PARTS 881794 4t4t2016 HYDRAULIC FLUID PW '92.86 ,'92.86 411512016 natl6 ilIATI ONAL SAFETY COM P LIAI.658O8 3t31t2016 EMPLOYEE TESTING 201.17 '201.17 .NORTH 411512016 nor13 COUNTY DISPATCH JI2O16-102 4t1t2016 DISPATCH 4TH QTR PW 20'1.30 '201.30 411512016 off03 ,oFFlcE DEPOT 830841938001 3t2412016 EASELS CM '151.18 832769798001 4t6t2016 USB DRIVE CS '97.19 832574427001 4t5t2016 MONITOR STANDS CS 60.46 832769691 001 4t5t2016 OFFICE SUPPLIES CS '46.87 355.70 411512016 pal14 PALOMAR MOUNTAIN PREMIL3797579 3t31t2016 WATER CS 168.45 168.45 411512016 pho01 ÞHorux cRoup rNFo sysr022016036 3t28t20't6 CITE SRVCS FEB 2,229.04 2,229.04 411512016 pru01 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPP 130651324 4t1t2016 UNIFORMS PW '46.97 '46.83 1 30652991 4t8t2016 UNIFORMS PW 1 30651 323 4t1t2016 SHOP TOWELS PW ' 3.72 97.52 4/15t2416 qui07 QS WHOLESALE, INC. 92279204 4t1t2016 LFGRD UNIFORM SHORTS 695.25 695.25 4115t2016 resO1 RESCUE SoURcE, THE 12417 3t31t2016 CLIFF RESCUE SUPPLIES €9.76 89.76 4t15t2016 rwl01 RW UrrUe CO., tNC. 126414 4t112016 SANDBLASTING TOT LOT -4so.oo 450.00 4t15t2016 sds02 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 9952 226 862 O 4t4t2016 UTILITIES MAR 15.43 15.43 4t1512016 shr01 SHRED-IT US JV LLC 9410164440 4nt2016 ON-SITE SHREDDING APR 65.24 65.24
Page:1
6 May 2, 2016 Item 08 apChkLst TrialGheck List Page= 2 0411412016 1l:26:354M Gity of Del Mar
Bank : qunion GENERAL ACCOUNT UNION B¡ (Continued) Gheck # Date Vendor lnvoice lnv Date Descriotion Amount Paid Gheck Total 411512016 sou08 SOUTHWEST SIGNAL SERVICs21 93 3t31t2016 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT MAR 1,812.97 52182 3t31t2016 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT MAR '518.84 2,331.81 ,STATEWIDE 411512016 sta24 TRAFFIC SFTY & 01OO15OB 4t6t2016 STREET SIGNS PW 147.62 147.62 4/15/2016 ste08 'srepHrru DALToN ARcH lrEc3639 4t1t2016 PHCC RESTROOM PROJ 701.13 3638 4t1t2016 LIBRARYA/C PROJ '95.00 796.13 411512016 the23 ¡iHE nwroN cRouP tNc s2441 41812016 INTERNS PW 3I2B4I1 '895.38 52435 4t1t2016 TNTERNS PW 3t21-3t25 '884.50 1,779.88 4t15t2016 ven03 I/ENTEK INTERNATIONAL 46696 4t1t2016 PRKG MTRSANNUAL FEE 3,455.00 3,455.00 4t15t2016 via0l únrRoru sYSTEMS rNc PJ4691-B 3t30t2016 SCANNING MAR ,2,757.03 2,757.03 '206.00 4t15t2016 wes29 Í^/EST COAST ARBORISTS, IN 1 14204 4t4t2016 TREE MAINT SRVCS 311-3115 206.00 4t15t2016 treO8 WONDENBERG ENTERPRISE: 1 227038-3 4t412016 ANDERSON CYN PIPE TEST '1,o1l.oo 1,017.00 4115t2016 xerO1 fenox coRPoRATroN oa4o6s2s9 4t1t2016 XEROX LEASE CS MARCH /155.09 155.09 Sub totalfor GENERALACCOUNT UNION BANK: 26,093.49
Page:2
7 May 2, 2016 Item 08 apChkLst TrialCheck List Page: 3 04114//2016 11:26:35AM City of Del Mar
34 checks in this report. Grand TotalAll Checks 26,093.49 Ã1,ùr,ß* u u 4lrclzntç
Page: 3
8 May 2, 2016 Item 08 apGhklst FinalGheck List Page: I 0412412016 8:39:5lAM City of Del Mar
Bank: qunion GENERALACCOUNT UNION B¡ Check # Date Vendor lnvoice lnv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 5197 411512016 san03 SAN DIEGO COUNTYWATER ,0216-2 31412016 RAWWATER FEB 88,983.51 88,983.51 Voucher: 5197 Sub totalfor GENERALACCOUNT UNION BANK: 88,983.51
Page: 1
9 May 2, 2016 Item 08 apGhkLst Final Check List Page: 2 0412412016 8:39:5lAM Gity of Del Mar
I checks in this report. Grand TotalAll Ghecks: 88,983.51
Ultt'zotø
Page:2
10 May 2, 2016 Item 08 apGhklst FinalCheck List Page: I 0411812016 3:45:16PM Gity of Del Mar
Bank : sunion GENERAL ACCOUNT UNION B¡ Check # Date Vendor lnvoice lnv Date Description Amount Paid Gheck Total 2267 411512016 irsO1 IRS 8en133293 411512016 FEDERAL TAX: PAYMENT 26,161.44 26,161.44 Voucher: 2267 2268 4t15t2016 van03 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER ABenl 33295 411512016 ICMA DEFERRED COMP 4578 9,005.21 9,005.21 Voucher: 2268 2269 4t15t2016 perO1 PERS 8en133297 411512016 PERS SVC CREDIT PURCHAS 36,469.25 36,469.25 Voucher: 2269 2270 411512016 eddOl EMPLOYM ENT DEVELOPMEN Ben 1 33299 411512016 STATE TAX: PAYMENT 7,113.92 7,113.92 Voucher: 2270 2271 4t15t2016 nat15 NATIONAL BENEFIT SERVlCElBenl 33301 411512016 SEC. 125 FLEXIBLE SAVINGS 562.55 s62.55 Voucher: 2271 2272 411512016 par21 U.S. BANK PARS+67460224008en1 33303 411512016 PUBLIC AGENCY RETIREMEN 1,853.30 1,853.30 Voucher: 2272 2273 411512016 van02 VANTAGEPOI NT TRANSFER ABenl 33305 411512016 4O1A PLAN: PAYMENT 510.15 510.15 Voucher: 2273 2274 4t15t2016 van07 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER - Ben133307 411512016 lcMA 457(8) LOAN PAYMENT: 1,421.97 1,421.97 Voucher: 2274 115941 4t15t2016 uni21 MUFG UNION BANK NA 8en133291 4115120',t6 DMCEA DUES: PAYMENT 231.00 231.00 Voucher: 115941
Sub totalfor GENERALACCOUNT UNION BANK 83,328.79
Page: 1
11 May 2, 2016 Item 08 apchklst FinalGheck List Page:2 0411812016 3:45:16PM City of Del Mar
9 checks in this report. Grand TotalAll Checks 83,329.79
'llßl?ott"
Page:2
12 May 2, 2016 Item 08 apChklst FinalCheck List Page: I 0412112016 l0:39:l6AM City of Del Mar
Bank : sunion GENERAL ACCOUNT UNION B¡ Check# Date Vendor lnvoice lnv Date Description Amount Paid Gheck Total 115942 412212016 clo0l ABELSOHN INVESTMENTS lN'1 5775 4t15t2016 BARK BEETTLE FLYERS 432.22 432.22 Voucher: 115942 115943 412212016 blu06 ACROSS THE STREET PRODI.12-3847 4t15t2016 FIRE TRAINING S MORGAN 346.50 346.50 Voucher: 115943 115944 412212016 app07 APPLIED INDUSTRIAL 1602464 4t4t2016 WATER SAMPLINGAPR 222.48 Voucher: 115944 1602463 4t4t2016 WATER SAMPLINGAPR 191.58 1602508 4t13t2016 WATER SAMPLINGAPR 86.52 500.58 115945 4t22t20',t6 sbcO1 AT&T 338 841-0441 4t712016 TELEPHONEAPR 33.29 33.29 Voucher: 115945 115946 4t22t2016 ban06 BANNER BANK #4 4t14t2016 SWAP PROJ #4 22,374.60 22,374.60 Voucher: 115946 115947 4t22t2016 bla13 BLASTCO INV 47579 4t12t2016 ZUNI RES DISINFECTION 1,950.00 1,950.00 Voucher: 115947 115948 4t22t2016 blu07 BLUE SKIES LANDSCAPE MAI#1 4t7t2016 RIVPERPATH PROJ 44,172.83 44,172.83 Voucher: 1 I 5948 115949 412212016 cap10 CAPITOLADVOCACYLLC 91597 4t15t2016 CA GOV ADVOCACY MAY 4,000.00 4,000.00 Voucher: 11 5949 115950 4t22t2016 cer05 CERF, ADRIENNE 0420201601 4t19t2016 DEP NEW MTR 145 21ST ST 2,574.42 2,574.42 Voucher: 115950 115951 412212016 cou02 couNTy oF sAN ÐtEGo-ANlt\DM-2015/20164 4n2U6 ANIMAL CONTROL 4TH Q 7,642.75 7,642.75 Voucher: 11 5951 115952 4t22t2016 dciO1 DCIR, LLC Ref000133310 411412016 UTILIW REFUND 382.17 Voucher: 115952 Ref000133309 411412016 UTILITYREFUND 332.75 714.92 115953 4t22t2016 del06 DEL MARAUTOMOTIVE SERV27885 411512016 VEHICLE OIL PW 55.20 55.20 Voucher: 1 I 5953 115954 4122t2016 del02 DEL MAR BLUE PRINT CO, IN(382683 411412016 CH PROJ COPIES 64.15 Voucher: 115954 382803 411512016 ANNUAL ST RESURFACING 34.02 382689 4t1412016 RW PIPELINE COPIES 11.88 381761 4t512016 CH PROJ COPIES 11.34 121.39 115955 412212016 div04 DIVISION OF, THE STATEARCJAN - MAR 2016 411912016 sB 1186 1Q 271.50 271.50 Voucher: 115955
Page:1
13 May 2, 2016 Item 08 apChklst FinalCheck List Page:2 0412112016 10:39:16AM City of Del Mar
Bank sunion GENERALACCOUNT UNION B¡ (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor lnvoice lnv Date Descriotion Amount Paid Check Total 115956 412212016 dix01 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO. 06-0111608 411412016 CONCRETE TUBE RIVERPAT] 270.49 Voucher: 115956 06-0110798 4t4t2016 CLEANING SUPPLIES PW 82.56 06-0111610 4t14t2016 CONCRETE TUBE RIVERPAT] 52.90 06-0111570 4t7t2016 LIGHTBULBS PW 30.60 06-0111209 4t6t2016 PVC PIPES PW 27.83 06-0111615 41712016 CLEANING SUPPLIES PW 25.26 06-0111237 4t6t2016 PVC PIPES PW 23.92 06-01 11 370 4t6t2016 PAINTING SUPPLIES PW 20.04 06-0112188 411212016 LUMBER RIVERPATH 19.50 06-0111447 4t14t2016 PVC PIPE PW 12.94 06-01 I 0890 41412016 CLEANING SUPPLIES PW 10.68 06-0111723 4t8t2016 EQUIP REPAIR PW 6.11 06-0111618 4t7t2016 PLUMBING PARTS PW 5.14 587.97 115957 412212016 duk01 DUDEK & ASSOCIATES 20161519 4t13t2016 ENGINEERING PROJS MAR 34,300.00 Voucher: 115957 20161520 4t13t2016 ANDERSON CYN RPR MAR 14,625.00 2016'15r8 411312016 ANNUAL ST RESURFACING N 500.00 49,425.00 115958 4t22t2016 elc02 EL CAMINO RENTAL 501 345-1 4t13t2016 CONCRETE MIXER PW 395.28 395.28 Voucher: 115958 115959 4t22t2016 esq02 ESGIL CORPORATION 4t44t8t16 411112016 BLDG tNSP 4i44l8/16 1,092.59 1,092.59 Voucher: 1 1 5959 115960 4t22t2016 fas03 FASTENAL COMPANY CASAM27458 41812016 RIVERPATHSUPPLIES 5.31 5.31 Voucher: 115960 115961 4t22t2016 ter07 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES IN0546587-1 313012016 WATER METER PARTS PW 256.39 256.39 Voucher: 115961 115962 4t22t2016 hal09 HALMAGEAN, SONIA 04182016 411812016 REF DAMAGE DEP 4116116 800.00 800.00 Voucher: 115962 115963 4t22t2016 har32 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES 31064 311112016 ANNUAL WSTWTR PROG FEf 21,321.89 Voucher: 115963 31068 311112016 WSTWTR INFRASTRTR FEB 13,377.50 34,699.39 115964 4t22t2016 iac14 JACOBS, SHAWNA 04182016 411812016 REF DAMAGE DEP 4117116 800.00 800.00 Voucher: 115964 115965 4t22t2016 div03 K&M BUSINESS GROUP OO4 411612016 SCUBATRAINING CS 350.00 350.00 Voucher: 115965 115966 4t22t2016 tifO1 LIFE-ASSIST 747382 41712016 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 118.00 118,00 Voucher: 1 1 5966
Page:2
14 May 2, 2016 Item 08 apChkLst FinalCheck List Page: 3 0412112016 10:39:l6AM Gity of Del Mar
Bank : sunion GENERAL ACCOUNT UNION B¡ (Continued) Check # Date Vendor lnvoice lnv Date Description Amount Paid Gheck Total 115967 4t22t2016 lou01 LOUKELTON DISTRIBUTING I168286 4111t2016 RESTROOM SUPPLIES PW 70.15 70.15 Voucher: 1 1 5967 115968 4t22t2016 nasO1 NASLAND ENGINEERING 96948 3t15t2016 15TH STiSTRAT IMP 576.25 576.25 Voucher: 115968 115969 4t22t2016 beh02 NAVID BEHRADIAN 04182016 4t18t2016 REF B/UTAXIVEH FEE 80.00 80.00 Voucher: 115969 115970 4t22t2016 offO3 oFFtcE DEPOT 833204502001 4t7t2016 OFFICE SUPPLIES CH 151.96 151.96 Voucher: 115970 115971 4t22t2016 offO5 oFFIoETEAM 45504354 4t11t2016 TEMP SRVCS WK 4/8/16 1,027.57 1,027.57 Voucher: 115971 115972 4122t2016 can05 PACIFIC SWEEPING 131056 313112016 ST SWEEPING MAR 1,369.23 Voucher: 115972 1 31 066 3t31t2016 ST SWEEPING JAN 73.21 1,442.44 115973 4t22t2016 par22 PARS 34140 418t2016 PARS TRUSTADMIN FEB 400.00 400.00 Voucher: 115973 115974 412212016 pea05 PEARL CAPITAL PARTNERS 1104132016 411312016 CANCELED EVENT 91412016 225.00 225.00 Voucher: 115974 115975 4t22t2016 petO1 PETTYCASH PETTYCASH 411812016 NEIGHBORHOOD MTG 335.11 335.11 Voucher: 1 1 5975 115976 4t22t2016 plu01 PLUMBERS DEPOT INC. PD-30670 212412016 SEWER TOOLS PW 96.12 96.12 Voucher: 1 1 5976 115977 4t22t2016 pos02 POST HASTE DIRECT 74044 411312016 UTILITY STMNTS APR 297.24 297.24 Voucher: 115977 115978 4t22t2016 pru01 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPP 130654641 4t15t2016 UNIFORMS PW 45.85 Voucher: 1 I 5978 130654639 411512016 MATS PW 13.40 130654640 4t15t2016 SHOP TOWELS PW 3.72 62.97 115979 412212016 rec01 RECON ENVIRONMENTAL INC5332O 4t6t2016 CITY HALL ENV MAR 3,047.50 3,047.50 Voucher: 115979 115980 412212016 sai0l SAINT PETER'S EPISCOPAL C04182016 411812016 PRKG METER REV MAR 537.82 537.82 Voucher: 115980
Page: 3
15 May 2, 2016 Item 08 apChklst FinalGheck List Page= 4 0412112016 10:39:l6AM City of Del Mar
Bank: sunion GENERALACCOUNT UNION B¡ (Continued) Gheck # Date Vendor lnvoice lnv Date Descriotion Amount Paid Gheck Total 115981 412212016 sds01 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 3321196073 4 4t15t2016 1278150138 1,204.28 Voucher: 115981 42219840632 4t15t2016 4403932547 796.67 9085225457 I 4t15t2016 3277446379 464.92 5272993759 6 4t15t2016 4402281738 315.37 1031061427 1 4t1512016 1028748791 115.63 1659517095 4 4t15t2016 883721 9359 61.23 5420078712 8 4t1512016 3280024752 42.47 9215142821 I 4t15t2016 6654915238 7.00 3,007.57 115982 4t22t2016 sdg02 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 9245 765 583 8 4t11t2016 UTILITIESAPR 97.28 97.28 Voucher: 115982 115983 4t22t2016 san75 SAN DIEGO MAIN 04182016 411812016 POSTAGE 2,500.00 2,500.00 Voucher: 11 5983 115984 4t22t2016 she01 SHELL FLEET PLUS 80 002 34487 4t5t2016 GAS & OtL PW MAR/APR 2,423.61 2,423.61 Voucher: 1 1 5984 115985 4t22t2016 she01 SHELL FLEET PLUS 80 002 3450 3 4t5t2016 GAS & OtL FIRE MAR/APR 494.94 494.94 Voucher: 115985 115986 4t22t2016 shr01 SHRED-IT US JV LLC 9410210502 4t12t2016 oN-SITESHREDDINGAPR 372.75 372.75 Voucher: 115986 115987 4t22t2016 sou14 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOI 13741 1 2 313112016 SIDEWALK PROJ 3,142.50 3,142.50 Voucher: 115987 115988 4t22t2016 spa01 SPARKLETTS 24537454255121 41312016 WATER ANNEX 50.86 50.86 Voucher: 1r5988 115989 4t22t2016 sta09 SWRCB LW-1006166 41412016 WTR SYSTEM FEES JUUDEC 4,580.82 4,580.82 Voucher: 115989 115990 412212016 the23 THE LAWTON GROUP INC 52448 411512016 INTERNS PW 414419 844.63 844.63 Voucher: 1 1 5990 1'15991 412212016 dis05 THE REINALT-THOMAS CORP1283872 41812016 VEHICLE TIRES PW 492.63 492.63 Voucher: 1 1 5991 115992 4t22t2016 tim04 TIME WARNER CABLE 8448410060008! 4t12t2016 CABLE TV CH MAY 120.00 120.00 Voucher: 115992 115993 4t22t2016 tim04 ïtME WARNER CABLE 8448410060004-, 4t8t2016 CABLE TV STUÐIO MAY 8.00 8.00 Voucher: 1 1 5993 115994 4t2212016 adt01 TYCO INTEGRATED SEC LLC 26323355 41912016 ALARM LIBRARY FEB/APR 330.00 330.00 Voucher: 115994
Page:4
16 May 2, 2016 Item 08 apchkLst Final Check List Page: 5 0412112016 l0:39:l6AM Gity of Del Mar
Bank: sunion GENERALACCOUNT UNION B¡ (Continued)
Gheck # Date Vendor Invoice lnv Date Descriotion Amount Paid Gheck Total 115995 4t22t2016 adt01 TYCO INTEGRATED SEC LLC 584878484 4t12t2016 ALARM CH MAY/JUL 100.38 100.38 Voucher: 115995 115996 4t2A2016 uni25 UNITS MOBILE STORAGE OF 0222A25 411512016 STORAGE CS MAY 2U.12 204.12 Voucher: 115996 115997 4t22l2016 usb03 US BANK CORP PYMT SYSTE4246 0445 5565 3t22t2016 CREDIT CARD CHRGS MAR 7,799.30 7,799.30 Voucher: 1't5997 115998 4t22t2016 ver03 vERtzoN W|RELESS 972337150-000C 4t9t2016 TELEPHONEAPR 60.01 60.01 Vouche¡: 115998 115999 4t22n016 vil10 VI LLAGE NURSERIES WHOLE3O51 6582 4n2U6 VARIOUS PLANTS FOR JIMM' 458.U 458.34 Voucher: 115999 116000 4t22t2016 wes29 WEST COAST ARBORISTS. IN 1 14646 4t16t2016 TREE MAINT SRVCS 3116-313' 2,317.50 2,317.50 Voucher: 116000 116001 4t22t2016 dieO1 WHITE NELSON DIEHL EVANS160381 313112016 AUDIT FY 15 #6 FÍNAL 1,605.00 1,605.00 Voucher: ll600l 116002 4t22t2016 xerO1 XEROX CORPORATION 084178735 4t9t2016 XEROX LEASE PWAPR 246.09 246.09 Vouche¡r 116002
Sub totalfor GENERALACCOUNT UNION BANK: 213,326.59
Page:5
17 May 2, 2016 Item 08 apGhklst FinalGheck List Page: 6 O4,i21nOß l0:39:fGAM Gity of Del ilar
6l checks in this report. Grand Total All Ghecks: 213 ta 'tbft v
Page:6
18 May 2, 2016 Item 08 apChkLst FinalCheck List Page: 2 0412412016 l0:29:104M Gity of Del Mar
3 checks in this report. Grand TotalAll Ghecks: 452,031.02
alrø'Lalb
Page:2
19 May 2, 2016 Item 08 apChklst FinalGheck List Page:1 0412412016 l0:29:104M City of Del Mar
Bank: sunion GENERALACCOUNT UNTON B¡ Gheck # Date Vendor lnvoice lnv Date Description Amount Paid Gheck Totat pal10 5202 412212016 PAL GENERAL ENGINEERING #4 4t14t2016 SWAP PROJ #4 425,117.40 425,117.40 Voucher: 5202 412212016 pal10 5203 PAL GENERAL ENGINEERING #2 411B12016 CITYADA IMPROV PROJ 3,423.00 3,423.00 Voucher: 5203 412212016 pal10 5204 PAL GENERAL ENGINEERING #3 411812016 ANNUAL ST RESURFACING # 23,490.62 23,490.62 Voucher: 5204
Sub totalfor GENERALACCOUNT UNTON BANK: 452,031.02
Page: 1
20 May 2, 2016 Item 08 City of Del Mar Staff Report
TO: Honorable City Council Members
FROM: Kristen M. Crane, Management Services Director Via Scott W. Huth, City Manager
DATE: May 2, 2016
SUBJECT: Del Mar Community Connections Dial-A-Ride Agreement Modification and Amend the Fiscal Years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 Operating and Capital Budget
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the City Manager to enter into a modified letter agreement (Attachment B) with Del Mar Community Connections (“DMCC”) a modified letter agreement (Attachment B) with Del Mar Community Connections (“DMCC”) to provide the Dial-A- Ride (“DAR”) Taxi Voucher Program on the City’s behalf and authorization to amend the Fiscal Years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 Operating and Capital Budget to appropriate $5,250 for Fiscal Year 2015-2016 and $4,900 for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 from the General Fund.
The City’s existing agreement with DMCC for the DAR Program is currently funded in the amended Fiscal Years 2015-2016 and 2016-17 Operating and Capital Budget at $5,000. The recommended modification would increase the City’s payment to DMCC by no more than $5,250 for FY 2015-2016 and $4,900 for FY 2016-2017, for a total maximum DAR allocation of $10,250 in FY 2016 and $9,900 for FY 2017.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
The DAR program subsidizes taxi vouchers for eligible participants for travel from Del Mar for the purpose of “medical and other essential appointments” within the County of San Diego for residents of the City who are over 60 or disabled.
In 2007, the City transitioned all operations of its Dial-A-Ride Program to Del Mar Community Connections for a $4,000 annual service fee. Prior to that, the program was administered in-house by the Finance Department staff. Starting this fiscal year, the fee paid to DMCC was amended to its current annual amount of $5,000, based on greater participation and taxi fare costs. Historically, funding for this program has been allocated
______City Council Action:
1 May 2, 2016 Item 10 City Council Staff Report Dial-A-Ride Program Update May 2, 2016 Page 2 of 4 to DMCC through the City’s annual community support funding request program, which occurs as part of the biannual two-year budget development process. DMCC’s administrative responsibilities for this program include customer service for the program participants, serving as the primary point of contact for Del Mar resident inquiries and service needs, selling voucher booklets to customers, verifying participant eligibility, reconciling monthly taxi company invoices, and processing payments to the taxi companies for the redeemed vouchers.
Taxi voucher programs and specialized bus/shuttle programs have been used throughout the nation for many years as a viable and practical way to support a positive quality of life for senior and disabled residents. San Diego County is no exception, and most cities in the region offer some type of transportation support services, either in- house or contractually, typically through non-profit providers. Solana Beach and Oceanside are examples of other local cities that offer taxi voucher programs.
In addition to providing a valued community service, DAR satisfies a portion of the City’s “Maintenance of Effort” (MOE) requirement to contribute funding toward specialized transportation services which is required as part of receiving TransNet funds from SANDAG. TransNet, a one-half cent local sales tax, is used for traffic congestion relief and transportation improvements. TransNet includes a Maintenance of Effort provision to guarantee that the City spends a certain amount of local discretionary funds on the maintenance and improvement of the public right-of-way. Del Mar currently receives in excess of $200,000 annually in TransNet funding and relies on these funds for various right-of-way improvements. Del Mar’s current MOE amount for specialized transportation is $16,973 and is expected to increase to $20,877 in Fiscal Year 2017- 2018.
Residents wishing to use the DAR program can purchase a $20.00 value taxi voucher booklet from DMCC for $5.00. The monthly limit is four (4) voucher booklets per person. In contrast, Solana Beach charges $7.50 per booklet for a similar book with a cap of one booklet per month, while Oceanside charges $7.00 per booklet with a cap of four (4) booklets per month. In recent years popularity of Del Mar’s DAR program has increased dramatically; participation has increased from 188 vouchers issued in FY 2011 to 424 sold in FY 2015, with approximately 25 families participating.
2 May 2, 2016 Item 10 City Council Staff Report Dial-A-Ride Program Update May 2, 2016 Page 3 of 4
Vouchers Issued 500 400 300 200 100 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 To date, DMCC has used the flat-amount paid by the City, (currently $5,000 per year) and the revenue from voucher booklet sales to cover their administrative costs to run the program on behalf of the City, as well as to pay the full cost of the taxi trip due to the taxi companies. However, since the $5,000 per year flat payment by the City to DMCC really is their funding source to off-set DMCC’s cost to administer the program on behalf of the City, in recent years, particularly since participation has been increasing, DMCC has been financially absorbing the $15 difference between the full cost of the taxi fares and the proceeds of the sale of taxi vouchers. DMCC projects up to 350 booklets will be sold in the current fiscal year (FY 2016) which would amount to a $5,250 subsidy by DMCC, based on $15 per booklet, after the $5.00 paid by residents.
In the interest of continued process improvement, City staff and DMCC revisited the current terms of the program which have not changed since the City began partnering with DMCC to administer the DAR program in 2007. Given that costs have continued to rise, it was agreed that a phased adjustment to stakeholder financial participation in the program was appropriate. Beginning July 1, 2016, the price for voucher booklets will be $6.00, increasing to $7.00 on July 1, 2017. DMCC will begin advertising this program change to participants.
Staff proposes an amendment to the City’s agreement with DMCC for administration of this program whereby the City will continue its $5,000 commitment for program administration and add up to $5,250 for the current fiscal year to fund the difference between taxi fares and the sale of voucher booklets. This assumes up to 350 voucher booklets being issued this current fiscal year at subside of $15.00 each. The entire amount funded by the City, including administration and taxi vouchers subsidies, shall not exceed $10,250 for FY 2015-2016. Beginning in FY 2016-2017, the voucher subsidy would decrease to a maximum of $4,900 based on the revised $6 per booklet price, and in FY 2017-2018 the voucher subsidy would be capped at $4,550. DMCC will be reimbursed quarterly based on booklet sales in the prior quarter.
FISCAL IMPACT This City’s existing agreement with DMCC for the DAR Program is currently funded at $5,000 in the FY 2015-2016 adopted Fiscal Years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 Operating and Capital Budget. This recommended amendment would increase the City’s
3 May 2, 2016 Item 10 City Council Staff Report Dial-A-Ride Program Update May 2, 2016 Page 4 of 4 commitment to DMCC by no more than $5,250 for FY 2015-2016 and $4,900 for FY 2016-2017 to subsidize the difference between the projected full cost of taxi fares and the proceeds from the sale of taxi vouchers. City funding changes can be summarized as follows. Voucher DAR Total City Booklets Voucher Fiscal Year Booklet Administration Funding ($20 Value) Subsidy Price Paid to DMCC Cap FY 2016 $5.00 350 $5,250 $5,000 $10,250 FY 2017 $6.00 350 $4,900 $5,000 $ 9,900 FY 2018 $7.00 350 $4,550 $5,000 $ 9,550
The City funds this program using General Fund monies. To cover this additional program expense in the Fiscal Years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 Operating and Capital Budget an amendment from the General Fund is required ($5,250 for FY 2016 and $4,900 for FY 2017).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact associated with this action.
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: May 13, 2013 –Community Support funding requests for Fiscal Years 2013 – 2015 May 11, 2015 –Community Support funding requests for Fiscal Years 2015 – 2017
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Resolution Attachment B – Proposed DMCC Dial-A-Ride Agreement
4 May 2, 2016 Item 10 ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING FUNDING FOR DEL MAR COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FOR THE DIAL-A-RIDE PROGRAM AND INCREASING THE FISCAL YEARS 2015- 2016 AND 2016-2017 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET
WHEREAS, since 2007, Del Mar Community Connections has administered the Dial-A-Ride Program on behalf of the City of Del Mar; and
WHEREAS, City of Del Mar funds $5,000 to Del Mar Community Connections to cover the costs for the program, which is included in the Fiscal Years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 Operating and Capital Budget; and
WHEREAS, due to increasing program participation, this amount of funding is no longer covering DMCC’s cost to administer the Dial-A-Ride program and to pay the participating taxi companies for the full cost of the trips provided to eligible participants; and
WHEREAS, the Dial-A-Ride program provides an important transportation resource to eligible participants who are disabled and/or over age 60 for medical and other essential appointments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Del Mar that the City Manager is authorized to enter a letter agreement with DMCC for administration of this program; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, in addition to the $5,000 funding included in the Fiscal Years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 Operating and Capital Budget (Account #01-5110-3200), the City will provide DMCC with additional funding to reimburse DMCC for the cost of redeemed taxi vouchers as follows:
Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Up to $5,250
Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Up to $4,900
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the following transfers from General Fund contingency to the accounts noted below:
Community Support – Contractual Services - Account 01-5110-3200
Fiscal Year 2015-2016……….$5,250 01.5110.3200
Fiscal Year 2016-2017……….$4,900 01.5110.3200
5 May 2, 2016 Item 10 Resolution No. 2016-__ Page 2 of 2
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 2nd day of May 2016.
______SHERRYL PARKS, Mayor City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney City of Del Mar
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF DEL MAR
I, KRISTEN M. CRANE, Acting City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution 2016- ___, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 2nd day of May 2016, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______Kristen M. Crane, Acting City Clerk City of Del Mar
6 May 2, 2016 Item 10 City of Del Mar
May 2, 2016
Tom McGreal, President Del Mar Community Connections PO Box 2947 Del Mar, CA 92014
Re: Del Mar Dial-A-Ride Program Agreement Revisions
Dear Mr. McGreal:
This letter is intended to serve as the new agreement for the Dial-A-Ride program, building upon the original agreement dated June 22, 2007, the subsequent addendum dated February 7, 2008, and the agreement renewal dated October 10, 2011 between the City of Del Mar (“City”) and Del Mar Community Connections (“DMCC”).
The City partially funds a Dial-A-Ride program which subsidizes taxi vouchers for travel from Del Mar to medical and other essential appointment destinations within the County of San Diego for residents of the City who are over the age 60 and/or are disabled. As of January 1, 2008, DMCC assumed full operational responsibility for the Dial-A-Ride Program. The City’s Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Operating Budget includes $5,000 payable to the City of Del Mar for the Dial-A-Ride program. Over time, the number of vouchers sold has increased. DMCC’s payment to the taxi companies for the full value of the trips has exceeded the amount of funding provided by the City to DMCC, which is intended to cover the cost of program administration. For Fiscal Year 2015-2016, 350 vouchers are projected to be sold, which amounts to $5,250 in payments to the taxi companies not covered by revenue from the sold voucher booklets.
Because of rising program costs, beginning July 1, 2016, DMCC plans to increase the price of the voucher booklets by $1.00, with another $1.00 increase planned again one year later on July 1, 2017. This incremental change will bring the cost of the voucher booklets up to $7.00 by July 1, 2018, with a corresponding decrease in the City’s program subsidy requirement. DMCC will be responsible for notifying program participants of the forthcoming voucher booklet price changes and restating to participants the program eligibility requirements and that voucher program privileges can be withheld if use requirements are not met.
7 May 2, 2016 Item 10 Del Mar Community Connections Dial-A-Ride Program May 2, 2016 Page 2
To help ensure program continuity, the City shall continue to fund the program at the rate of $5,000 per year for the program’s administration. Additionally, the City will reimburse DMCC for the difference between the full cost of the taxi fares and the proceeds from the sale of taxi vouchers, for a total not to exceed $5,250 in Fiscal Year 2015-2016. The entire amount funded by the City, including administration and taxi vouchers subsidies, shall not exceed $10,250. DMCC may seek additional funding, if funds are not sufficient based on program participation or some other factor.
Based on current projections, the City funding cap is predicted as follows, subject to City Council approval in subsequent years.
Voucher DAR Total City Booklets Voucher Fiscal Year Booklet Administration Funding ($20 Value) Subsidy Price Paid to DMCC Cap FY 2016 $5.00 350 $5,250 $5,000 $10,250 FY 2017 $6.00 350 $4,900 $5,000 $ 9,900 FY 2018 $7.00 350 $4,550 $5,000 $ 9,550
By executing this letter agreement (“Agreement”), DMCC agrees to be fully responsible for the administration and all other elements of the Dial-A-Ride program including any liability associated therewith.
The City will continue to print the voucher booklets as needed and determine the eligibility of cab companies to provide service. At the start of each fiscal year the City will remit $5,000 to DMCC as payment for program administration for the year. On a quarterly basis (by the last day of October, January, April, and July), DMCC will submit a request to the City’s Finance Director for reimbursement for taxi voucher subsidies paid out in the prior quarter. The reimbursement request will also include: number of vouchers sold, number of program participants, the full cost of taxi fares paid by DMCC, which companies are being used, and voucher revenue collected. If no funds have been collected, notification will still be provided to the City’s Finance Director. After validation of the request, the Finance Director will remit payment to DMCC.
Providing both parties are satisfied with the operations of this program, each party hereby agrees to continue the arrangement for Fiscal Year 2016-2017. This Contract shall automatically be extended for successive Fiscal Years unless terminated by either party in writing. Should either party wish to terminate this Agreement, written notice shall be provided within 30 days prior to the end of the Fiscal Year.
8 May 2, 2016 Item 10 Del Mar Community Connections Dial-A-Ride Program May 2, 2016 Page 3
By signing this letter, both the City and DMCC agree that the facts as cited above are accurate and each party has authority to execute this Agreement.
Scott W. Huth, City Manager Tom McGreal, President City of Del Mar Del Mar Community Connections
Enclosures: 1) Letter Agreement dated 6/22/2007 2) Addendum #1 dated 2/7/2008 3) Renewal Agreement dated 10/10/2011
9 May 2, 2016 Item 10 City of Del Mar
Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Council Members Don Mosier and Dwight Worden Liaisons to the Sustainability Advisory Board Prepared by Connie Smith-Ball, Deputy City Clerk
DATE: May 2, 2016
SUBJECT: Appointment to the Sustainability Advisory Board
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Council Liaisons to the Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB) recommend that the City Council appoint Andy Friedl to serve a second four-year term, expiring May 1, 2020.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
The SAB was established in 2011 (Resolution 2011-10, amended by Resolution 2013- 26 and 2014-26) to assist in the review of the City’s environmental programs and efforts, and to examine and evaluate future environmental sustainability initiatives for the City. The SAB was formed from its predecessor advisory committee, the Energy Issues Advisory Committee, which was formed in 2005 to advise the City on energy- related issues.
The SAB is composed of eight members, including an ex-officio member who is a Del Mar resident with expertise in environmental issues and one of whom may be a non- resident of Del Mar, who serve four-year staggered terms at the pleasure of the City Council, and one ex-officio member who serves a two year term.
There is currently one vacancy on the SAB as a result of the term expiration of existing SAB member, Andy Friedl on March 1, 2016. Mr. Friedl has continued to serve on the Board since March 1, 2016 exercising City Council Policy 200-D which allows an incumbent whose term has expired to continue to officially serve on the committee until the vacancy is filled or three months has passed, whichever occurs sooner. There is also one vacancy on the SAB as a result of the resignation of the SAB ex-officio member, which staff will continue to advertise the vacancy. .
As liaisons to the SAB, we recommend that the City Council appoint Andy Friedl to serve a second term on the SAB, expiring May 1, 2020. This will ensure that the terms ______City Council Action:
1 May 2, 2016 Item 11 City Council Staff Report Appointment to the Sustainability Advisory Board May 2, 2016 Page 2 of 2
of the Board are staggered appropriately. The application is attached for the City Council’s review.
With this appointment, the term of Sustainability Advisory Board Members will be as follows:
MEMBER NAME DATE APPOINTED TERM EXPIRATION Andy Friedl (non-resident) May 2, 2016 May 2020 Dolores Davies Jamison September 24, 2012 September 2016 Helen Eckmann March 16, 2015 May 2017 Nitza Leichtling July 21, 2014 August 2017 Ann Feeney April 7, 2014 April 2018 John Goodkind April 7, 2014 April 2018 Shirley King April 7, 2014 April 2018 Vacant (Ex-Officio)
Attachment A - Citizen Interest Form
2 May 2, 2016 Item 11 City of Del Mar Submit Date: Apr 20, 2016 Status: on agenda Profile
Andrew J Friedl First Name Middle Last Name Initial
Email Address
Street Address Suite or Apt
Del Mar CA 92014 City State Postal Code
No Do you live in the City of Del Mar?
Primary Phone Alternate Phone
Employer Job Title
Which Boards would you like to apply for?
Sustainability Advisory Board
Interests & Experiences
Tell us your qualifications for appointment and/or reasons for applying to serve on a board or commission..
Current Chair of the Sustainability Advisory Board.
Tell us about your educational background.
3 May 2, 2016 Item 11 Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering.
Tell us about your job experience.
Upload a Resume
Please list all the Del Mar boards, commissions, or committees that you now serve on.
Sustainability Advisory Board
Have you ever applied for a Del Mar Committee and not been appointed?
Yes No
If yes, what board or committee, and when?
Don Mosier Reference #1: Name
Rimini Rd. Reference #1: Street Name Only (NO house number)
Reference #1: Phone Number
Ann Feeney Reference #2: Name
4 May 2, 2016 Item 11 Rimini Rd. Reference #2: Street Name Only (NO house number)
Reference #2: Phone Number
Shirley King Reference #3: Name
Avenida Primavera Reference #3: Street Name Only (NO house number)
Reference #3: Phone Number
Demographics
January, 1991 I have been a resident of California since:
January, 1992 I have been a resident of San Diego County since:
San Diego - 1996 I have been a resident of Del Mar since:
I am a registered voter in Del Mar
Yes No
Ethnicity
Gender
Date of Birth
Acknowledgement
Please Agree with the Following Statement
5 May 2, 2016 Item 11 The Del Mar Municipal Code requires that all members of its committees file Conflict of Interest Statements with the Administrative Services Director in conformance with the Fair Political Practices Commission. By agreeing, I am acknowledging that I have reviewed the Del Mar Resolution(s) and/or Ordinance describing the committee for which I am applying.
I Agree *
6 May 2, 2016 Item 11 City of Del Mar
Staff Report
TO: Honorable City Council Members
FROM: Kathleen Garcia, Planning and Community Development Director Via Scott W. Huth, City Manager
DATE: May 2, 2016
SUBJECT: Authorization for Professional Services Contract for Commissioning Services for the City Hall/Town Hall Project
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Professional Services Agreement with a commissioning consultant for the provision of commissioning services for the new City Hall/Town Hall Project.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
The design of the City Hall and Town Hall requires owner-provided specialty consultation in the area of commissioning. Commissioning is the documented, systematic process of ensuring that building mechanical systems (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) perform and interrelate according to the engineer’s design intent and the owner’s operational needs. These services are required during the design, construction, and occupancy phases of this project in order to satisfy California Building Code CALgreen Tier One requirements.
City staff have requested and received quotes for professional commissioning services for the City Hall/Town Hall project from qualified local firms that are independent from the Engineer of Record. Four firms in San Diego were contacted to provide this service:
1. Glumac 2. MA Engineers 3. MBO, Inc. 4. SC Engineers
Randall Lamb & Associates, while qualified to provide commissioning services, is the Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing engineer on the Miller Hull project team, and the Engineer of Record.
______City Council Action:
1 May 2, 2016 Item 12 City Council Staff Report Authorization for Professional Services: Commissioning May 2, 2016 Page 2 of 2
Staff solicited professional services quotations from the four firms listed above. Staff is reviewing their responses for cost effectiveness, responsiveness, ability to perform the services, and prior experience.
Staff is requesting that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract for an amount not to exceed $20,000 with the commissioning services firm that provides the best value and responsiveness to the City.
The City Hall/Town Hall budget, adopted by the City Council on November 16, 2015, by Resolution 2015-79, identified the budget allocation of $3,301,548.00 for design; engineering; permits; CEQA review; fixtures, furnishings, and equipment (FF&E); and signage. These professional fees for commissioning services would fall under this budget category. At this time, this budget is approximately 25% expended with current architectural and CEQA services.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The City Hall project efforts to date, including design and EIR, are funded in the adopted FY 2015 - 2016 and 2016 – 2017 Operating and Capital Budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The commissioning of a building is not a project per the definition of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
The City Council adopted the budget for the City Hall/Town Hall project at their November 16, 2015 City Council meeting.
2 May 2, 2016 Item 12 City of Del Mar
Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Kathleen A. Garcia, Planning and Community Development Director Via Scott W. Huth, City Manager Prepared by Joseph Smith, AICP, Senior Planner
DATE: May 2, 2016
SUBJECT: Initial Consideration of an Appeal of the Design Review Board’s Decision Conditionally Approving Administrative Design Review Permit ADR15-041 for Private Improvements in the Rimini Road Public Right-Of-Way Project Appellant/Applicant: Gala Yayla Project Location: 545 Rimini Road (APN 300-390-09)
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council review the appeal request and not set the matter for a de novo hearing, thereby upholding the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Administrative Design Review permit ADR15-041 for previously-constructed entry columns and walls, driveway columns, and planter walls in the Rimini Road public right- of-way (Attachment A). The Design Review Board’s approval of this permit included two special conditions requiring the walls and columns be lowered to a maximum height of 42 inches and landscaping be replaced with a low-growing variety not to exceed a mature height of one-foot above grade.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This is an Administrative Hearing to determine whether to set the appeal for a de novo public hearing. The Design Review Board (DRB) conditionally approved the ADR application on March 23, 2016, and the approval has been appealed by the permit applicant/property owner, Gala Yayla at 545 Rimini Road (Attachment B). Ms. Yayla’s appeal raises objection with two special conditions of approval applied by the DRB to lower the walls and columns to a maximum height of 42 inches and to replace the landscaping with a low-growing variety not to exceed a mature height of one-foot above grade. Absent these conditions, the DRB determined that the project, as constructed, violates three provisions of the Design Review Ordinance – neighborhood scale, bulk and mass, and public access. The letter states grounds for the appeal were based on prejudice, conflict of interest, and community character. Note that on January 19, 2016,
______City Council Action:
1 May 2, 2016 Item 13 City Council Staff Report Initial Consideration of Appeal of ADR15-041 May 2, 2016 Page 2 of 9
the City Council approved a separate but related Encroachment Permit, EP15-048, to authorize the location of the improvements.
DISCUSSION:
This item involves an appeal filed by the permit applicant/property owner of the DRB’s decision on March 23, 2016 to conditionally approve ADR15-041 for previously- constructed (without permits) entry columns and walls, driveway columns, and planter walls along the north end of her property located at 545 Rimini Road. The improvements are constructed in the Rimini Road public right-of-way and their placement (not design) was previously-authorized by the City Council on January 19, 2016 under a separate but related Encroachment Permit, EP15-048 (Attachment C).
As part of its authorization of EP15-048, the City Council reminded the applicant of the need to gain Design Review authorization and of the fact that such review is based on a different set of standards (DMMC Chapter 23.08, Design Review Ordinance) than that applicable to encroachment permits (DMMC Chapter 23.28, Encroachment Permits). The subject ADR was submitted by the applicant as required by a condition of the approved EP. During the standard 10-day public noticing period for the ADR, a letter of objection was received by the Planning Department (Attachment D) and as a result, the request was scheduled for a full DRB hearing on March 23, 2016.
Site Description:
The subject property is 15,369 square feet in area, developed with a single-story residence, and located on an outside curve of Rimini Road (Attachment E). The residence is located at street level with direct vehicular access from Rimini Road. Surrounding uses consist of single-family residences in the R1-10 Zone.
Community Plan Designation:
The R1-10 Zone is designed to provide for an area of one-family residential development at a density level consistent with the City Community Plan. The standards of the zone are intended to preserve an open and uncrowded character and protect the unique residential environment of Del Mar. The standards are intended to promote and protect those special amenities associated with a district of single-family homes. Factors of topography and environmental sensitivities, the character of existing, low- density residential areas, and the need to identify Del Mar as a distinct and separate community shall be taken into account in administering the R1-10 standards.
2 May 2, 2016 Item 13 City Council Staff Report Initial Consideration of Appeal of ADR15-041 May 2, 2016 Page 3 of 9
Previous DRB Review of DRB-11-06 and Current Code Enforcement Status:
On June 22, 2011, the DRB approved DRB-11-06 for a remodel and addition to the residence with various site improvements proposed in the rear of the property. Even though the project has largely been completed, it remains classified as an active construction project until a final inspection occurs by the City Engineer and Building Inspector. However, DRB-11-06 did not include the replacement of columns and walls in the front yard as the approved scope of work was entirely concentrated on the rear half of the parcel. During the course of construction, the subject improvements were placed in the public right-of-way without prior authorization from the City. On July 29, 2015, code enforcement case CE15-180 was opened based on a complaint filed by a resident. This case remains active until approved EP and ADR permits are obtained.
Background – Construction of Improvements:
The subject improvements replaced existing site walls, columns, and landscaping along the parcel’s street frontage that existed at the time DRB-11-06 was approved. However, the replacement improvements were relocated closer to the paved street and include physical structures taller than previously existed. Photos of the previously existing condition in 2007 and 2012 are included in Exhibit F, with current photos of the subject improvements included as Exhibit G. Based on the photos, the subject improvements have increased in height and are located closer to the paved street than the prior structures. In addition, taller landscaping that previously-existed was removed and replaced with lower species. Based on the photos, the existing cobble gutter appears to have been present in 2007 and 2012 with revisions to the walkway completed as part of the recent improvements.
A site survey included with DRB-11-06 delineated the location of the prior site walls, columns, and front property line in relation to the right-of-way and paved street (Exhibit H). Based on the survey, the paved street is located approximately 11 feet from the applicant’s front property line, with the prior walls having maintained an approximate 12-foot setback from the paved street on the west end and a 5-foot setback on the east end. In comparison, the replacement walls and columns now maintain a 4-foot setback from the paved street.
Additionally, portions of the entry columns and walls were constructed above the maximum 42-inch height than would otherwise be allowed by the Zoning Code if the improvements were constructed entirely on private property at the front property line. The prior height of the walls and columns is undetermined, but appears to be approximately 3 to 4 feet based on the 2007 and 2012 photos. In comparison, staff has measured the height of the replacement entry columns at 8-feet, 3-inches and 7-feet, 9- inches in height, and the replacement walls adjacent to the columns between 7-feet and 4-feet, 10-inches. The remaining replacement walls range between 2-feet, 9-inches
3 May 2, 2016 Item 13 City Council Staff Report Initial Consideration of Appeal of ADR15-041 May 2, 2016 Page 4 of 9
and 1-foot. The replacement driveway columns are 3-feet, 10-inches and 2-feet, 4- inches.
The City’s Zoning Code does not establish height limits for walls that are located in the public right-of-way. However, should an applicant propose to construct a wall outside of the right-of-way and on their private property, the Zoning Code establishes a maximum height of 42-inches at the front property line. The Zoning Code also gives an allowance that for each two feet the wall is setback from the front property line, its height can increase six-inches (up to a maximum height of six feet). Staff typically recommends that in the event any structures are developed in the public right-of-way, the structures should be held to the same height restrictions enforced at the property line.
City Council Review of Encroachment Permit EP15-048:
In response to the code enforcement case, on August 10, 2015, the applicant submitted an application for Encroachment Permit EP15-048 to request authorization for the improvements in the public right-of-way. On January 19, 2016, the City Council authorized EP15-048 (2-2 vote, 1 recused; EPs require a majority vote to disapprove). The EP was approved for the improvements as constructed and subject to staff’s recommended conditions, with exception to two conditions that would have required the applicant to lower the height of the columns and walls to 42 inches and landscaping be replaced with a low-growing variety not to exceed a mature height of one-foot above grade. As part of its approval, the City Council reminded the applicant of the need to gain Design Review authorization and of the fact that such review is based on a different set of standards (DMMC Chapter 23.08, Design Review Ordinance) than that applicable to encroachment permits (DMMC Chapter 23.28, Encroachment Permits).
ADR Process and Objection During the 10-Day Review Period
Subsequent to the City Council’s approval of EP15-048, staff processed an Administrative Design Review (ADR) permit consistent with the process outlined in the DRO. To refresh, this project qualified for an ADR permit, which is similar to a regular DRB permit except that ADR applications are reviewed by the Planning Director within one month of a complete application to determine if they are consistent with the DMMC. Notice of the filing of an ADR application is mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site and posted on the City’s website. If no objection is filed within 10 business days of the mailing notice date, the project is deemed approved by the Planning Director subject to applicable conditions of approval. However, if an objection is submitted to the Planning Department during the 10-day review period and the matter cannot be resolved, the project is placed upon the next available agenda for a public hearing before the DRB.
4 May 2, 2016 Item 13 City Council Staff Report Initial Consideration of Appeal of ADR15-041 May 2, 2016 Page 5 of 9
During the 10-day review period for the subject ADR, one letter of objection was received by the Planning Department from Betty Wheeler at 1801 Seaview Avenue (Attachment D). Ms. Wheeler’s objection was based on four points: 1) an opportunity for full DRB review with public input should be provided; 2) the scope of the request exceeded those allowed by the ADR process; 3) the design of the walls and columns were inconsistent with Zoning code standards with respect to height; and 4) the design should not be approved based on “pedestrian concerns (DRO §23.08.074)” and “its relationship to the neighborhood (DRO §23.08.077)”. As such, the ADR was scheduled for review by the DRB at their March 23, 2016 meeting.
Staff notes that for the second point raised by Ms. Wheeler, an ADR was considered to be an acceptable process for this request. Section 23.08.035 describes the scope of projects permissible under the ADR process, with subsection (1) listing a “fence.” Pursuant to §30.04.060(C), a fence is defined as “A free standing structure resting on or partially buried in the ground and rising above ground level, and used for confinement, privacy, protection, screening or partition purposes.” As such, the proposed components included with the subject ADR were found to be consistent with this definition.
Design Review Board Review of Administrative Design Review ADR15-041:
On March 23, 2016, the DRB considered the ADR for the following scope of improvements requested by the applicant:
1. Two pedestrian entry columns a. Constructed heights of 8’3” and 7’9”
2. Walls adjacent to entry columns a. Constructed heights between 7’4” and 4’10”
3. Planter walls a. Constructed heights between 2’9” and 1’
4. Two driveway columns a. Constructed heights of 3’10” and 2’4”
5. Landscaping on the street-side of the wall (agaves)
Given the location of the replacement walls and columns and community character, the majority of which are at 42-inches or less, staff recommended a condition of approval requiring that the columns and walls be lowered to a height of 42 inches as measured from the top of the column/wall to the outside grade below. Staff also recommended a condition of approval requiring that the landscaping on the outside of the wall be replaced with a species that does not grow taller than one-foot at full maturity.
5 May 2, 2016 Item 13 City Council Staff Report Initial Consideration of Appeal of ADR15-041 May 2, 2016 Page 6 of 9
The DRB deliberated on the request and found that the project, as constructed, violated the following provisions of the DRO:
§23.08.077(C): The design is out of scale with other structures in the neighborhood.
§23.08.074(D): The design will interfere with public access, rights-of-way or a public easement.
§23.08.078(E): The proposed development fails to limit the amount of design components which unnecessarily add bulk and mass to the building but which are not calculated as floor area ratio (FAR) pursuant to DMMC Title 30, the Zone Code.
The DRB opined that the height and location of the walls and columns resulted in an unnecessary change in the character of the community and resulted in an appearance of unnecessary bulk and mass from the public view along Rimini Road. While the DRB acknowledged that other encroachments did exist in public right-of-way nearby, the constructed heights of the applicant’s walls and columns was out of scale with other similar structures in the neighborhood. The DRB further opined that the four-foot setback between the walls/columns and the street edge could impede parking along the street edge (e.g., vehicle has to park further into the street to allow a pedestrian door to open) which was further exacerbated by the installation of agave landscaping in the setback.
The DRB conditionally approved ADR15-041 and included the following two special conditions to establish compliance with the cited provisions of the DRO (Attachment A):
SC-1 [Wall and Column Height] The columns and walls shall be lowered to a maximum height of 42 inches as measured from the top of the column/wall to the outside grade below.
SC-2 [Landscaping Height] All landscaping located between the paved street and site walls and columns shall be replaced with a low-growing variety not to exceed a mature height of one (1) foot above grade.
The DRB’s decision was subject to a 10-day right of appeal ending on April 6, 2016.
6 May 2, 2016 Item 13 City Council Staff Report Initial Consideration of Appeal of ADR15-041 May 2, 2016 Page 7 of 9
Appeal of DRB Decision on ADR15-041
On April 6, 2016, the City received an appeal of the DRB’s conditional approval of ADR15-041 (Attachment B). The appeal was submitted by the applicant and property owner, Gala Yayla at 545 Rimini Road. In the appeal, Ms. Yayla raises objection with the two cited special conditions of approval (SC-1 and SC-2) applied by the DRB. The letter states grounds for the appeal were based on prejudice, conflict of interest, and community character.
Staff has included the appellant’s grounds for appeal in bold and provided a response to each in italics. Staff does not believe that the grounds cited in the Appeal warrant a de novo hearing by the City Council and, recommends that the City Council uphold the DRB’s decision approving ADR15-041 as conditioned.
I. Appeal based on “Extreme Prejudice.” The appellant states that “DRB Member Tim Haviland and Elle Haviland is a back neighbor and spoke to many members of the DRB prior to the hearing about the dislike of my project. Havilands are currently consulting with legal council to sue me for a building construction issue.”
Staff response: It is correct that the appellant and Havilands are neighbors and share a common property line to the south of the appellent’s residence. Tim Haviland is a current member of the DRB and Ellen Haviland is a current member of the Planning Commission. However, at the DRB hearing Tim Haviland had recused himself from participating in the review of the item due to the proximity of his residence. As demonstrated in the public record, neither Tim nor Ellen Haviland participated in the DRB’s consideration of ADR15-041 in oral or written form. For context, the walls and columns approved by ADR15-041 are located to the north of the appellant’s property and the Havilands’ property is located to the south and downslope of the appellant’s residence. With respect to a potential legal claim between the appellant and the Havilands, the matter is a civil issue between the appellant and the Havilands. Staff does not find that the stated grounds raise merit for a de novo hearing on the permit.
II. Appeal based on conflict of interest. The appellant states “Council Dwight Warden’s life partner, Betty Wheeler, by filing a complaint forced this issue into DRB after Warden did not prevail under his opinion the last time this issue was heard at CC. Betty Wheeler claimed innocent and refuted this statement during the DRB hearing, however her argument against the issue was in part, word for word of Dwight’s argument.”
Staff response: During the 10-day review period for the subject ADR, one letter of objection was received by the Planning Department from Betty Wheeler at 1801 Seaview Avenue (Attachment D). Ms. Wheeler’s objection was based on four points as
7 May 2, 2016 Item 13 City Council Staff Report Initial Consideration of Appeal of ADR15-041 May 2, 2016 Page 8 of 9
previously described under “ADR Process and Objection During the 10-Day Review Period.” As such, the ADR was scheduled for review by the DRB on March 23, 2016. At the DRB meeting, Ms. Wheeler provided public comment and reiterated that her views on this permit were those of her own. As demonstrated in the public record, City Councilmember Dwight Worden was not a party to the written objection of ADR15-041 nor did he participate in the DRB’s consideration of ADR15-041 in oral or written form. Staff does not find that the stated grounds raise merit for a de novo hearing on the permit.
III. Appeal based on community character. The appellant states that “there are many existing entrance structures within similar dimensions in Del Mar. The subject structure has been in place for three years.”
Staff’s response: The subject improvements were constructed without the benefit of permits and the matter is subject to active code enforcement. As previously described, the constructed walls and columns resulted in a larger design than had previously- existed and have further encroached into the public right-of-way to a distance of four feet from the paved street edge. As part of staff’s review of ADR15-041, a photo survey was conducted on Rimini Road between Luneta Drive to the west and Via Alta to the east (Exhibit I). As shown in the survey, the constructed improvements are not consistent with the character of other entrance structures located in the public right-of- way due to excessive height. The DRB determined that the walls and columns, as constructed, violated provisions of the DRO and conditioned the permit to require a lowering the column and wall height to 42 inches with the replacement of landscaping. Staff finds that the DRB adequately evaluated this project consistent with the provisions of the DRO and that the stated grounds for appeal do not raise merit for a de novo hearing on the permit.
CORRESPONDENCE:
The applicant’s appeal of the DRB’s decision is included as Attachment B. The objection letter to the ADR submitted by Betty Wheeler is included as Attachment D. One item of correspondence was received on this item from Tim and Ellen Haviland (Attachment J). For reference, staff has also included past correspondence submitted during the March 23, 2016 DRB meeting and the January 19, 2016 City Council meeting on EP15-048 as Attachment J.
CONCLUSION:
It is staff’s position that the concerns cited within the appeal have been addressed as described herein. The permit application request was reviewed at a public hearing at which the DRB unanimously approved the project subject to conditions of approval (DRB member Haviland recused). Based on the DRB’s deliberations, findings, and
8 May 2, 2016 Item 13 City Council Staff Report Initial Consideration of Appeal of ADR15-041 May 2, 2016 Page 9 of 9
conditions, staff recommends that the City Council uphold DRB’s action conditionally approving the project and not set the appeal for de novo public hearing.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to the City as this is a private development proposal. All fees associated with the project have been paid by the applicant. All fees associated with the appeal have been paid by the appellant.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
This project is listed among the classes of projects determined to have less than significant adverse effect on the environment and therefore, is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e)(1) – Existing Structures. Staff has further determined none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – DRB Resolution of Approval and Meeting Minutes (excerpt) Attachment B – Appeal Letter of DRB Decision Filed by Gala Yayla Attachment C – Encroachment Permit Approval Letter Attachment D – Objection Letter on ADR Review by Betty Wheeler Attachment E – Vicinity Map and Aerial Photo Attachment F – Pre-existing Condition Photos from 2007 and 2012 Attachment G – Existing Condition Photos from 2015 Attachment H – Site Survey with Pre-Existing Conditions Attachment I – Photo Survey of Rimini Rd between Luneta Drive and Via Alta Attachment J – Correspondence including past DRB and City Council Meetings
9 May 2, 2016 Item 13 Attachment A - DRB Resolution & Draft Meeting Minutes (excerpt)
RESOLUTION NO. DRB-2016-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR PREVIOUSLY-CONSTRUCTED ENTRY COLUMNS AND WALLS, DRIVEWAY COLUMNS, AND PLANTER WALLS ALONG THE NORTH END OF THE PROPERTY IN THE RIMINI ROAD PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED AT 545 RIMNI ROAD, DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA
APN: 300-390-09
WHEREAS, on June 22, 2011, the Design Review Board approved Design Review Board Permit DRB-11-06 for a remodel and addition to a single-family residence located at 545 Rimini Road in the R1-10 Zone with various site improvements proposed in the rear of the subject property. The DRB’s approval did not include any improvements in the front yard or in the Rimini Road public right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, on July 29, 2015, after receiving a complaint filed by a resident, the City Code Enforcement Officer opened Case CE15-180 for private improvements associated with the subject property that had been constructed in the Rimini Road public right-of-way without prior authorization from the City; and
WHEREAS, on August 10, 2015, property owner Gala Yala (herein referred to as “Applicant”) applied for Encroachment Permit (EP) EP15-048 and Administrative Design Review (ADR) Permit ADR15-041 to authorize the previously-constructed improvements in the public right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2016, the City Council held a public hearing on the application of EP15-048 and conditionally authorized EP15-048 to allow the Applicant use of the public right-of-way for the improvements. The City Council conditioned the EP to require a Design Review permit and reminded the Applicant that such review is based on a different set of standards (i.e., the Design Review Ordinance) than that applicable to EPs; and
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2016, the pending approval of ADR15-041 was noticed to property owners within a 300 foot radius of the subject property and posted on the City’s website for a standard 10-day public review period. However, during the standard 10-day public noticing period, which ran from January 22, 2016 to February 5, 2016, the Planning Department received one letter of concern on February 5, 2016 from Betty Wheeler at 1801 Seaview Avenue, Del Mar, California, which resulted in the application to be forwarded to the Design Review Board for a full hearing; and
WHEREAS, on March 23, 2016, the Design Review Board of the City of Del Mar held a public hearing on the application of ADR15-041 which was duly noticed, and at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include without limitation:
a. Plans submitted by the applicant.
10 May 2, 2016 Item 13 Resolution No. DRB-2016-07 Project No. ADR15-041 Page 2 of 5
b. Written information submitted with the application. c. Oral testimony from Staff, the applicant, and the public. d. Staff Report, dated March 23, 2016, which is incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. e. Additional information submitted during the hearing; and
WHEREAS, at the meeting the DRB deliberated on the request and found that the project, as presently constructed, violated the following provisions of the Design Review Ordinance (DRO), Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 23.08:
§23.08.077(C): The design is out of scale with other structures in the neighborhood.
§23.08.074(D): The design will interfere with public access, rights-of-way or a public easement.
§23.08.078(E): The proposed development fails to limit the amount of design components which unnecessarily add bulk and mass to the building but which are not calculated as floor area ratio (FAR) pursuant to DMMC Title 30, the Zone Code.
The DRB opined that the constructed height and location of the walls and columns resulted in an unnecessary change in the character of the community and resulted in an appearance of unnecessary bulk and mass from the public view along Rimini Road. The DRB acknowledged that other encroachments did exist in public right-of-way nearby; however, the constructed heights of the Applicant’s walls and columns were out of scale with other similar structures in the neighborhood. The DRB further opined that the four-foot setback between the walls/columns and the street edge could impede parking along the street edge (e.g., vehicle has to park further into the street to allow a pedestrian door to open) which was further exacerbated by the installation of agave landscaping in the setback. The DRB found that by lowering the wall and column heights to 42 inches and replacing the landscaping with a variety not to exceed one foot in height at maturity, the project would not violate the cited provisions of the DRO.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Design Review Board of the City of Del Mar, that:
1. This project is listed among the classes of projects determined to have less than significant adverse effect on the environment and therefore, is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305(b) – Minor Alterations in Land Use. The Design Review Board has further determined none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2); and
2. The proposed project, as conditioned to require the Applicant lower the wall and column heights to 42 inches and to replace the landscaping with a variety not to exceed one foot in height at maturity, will not be detrimental to the Community
11 May 2, 2016 Item 13 Resolution No. DRB-2016-07 Project No. ADR15-041 Page 3 of 5
based on the Regulatory Conclusions Sections of DMMC Chapter 23.08 (Design Review).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Design Review Board of the City of Del Mar that ADR15-041 is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
[Note: The conditions listed below may have intentional gaps in numbering or lettering.]
General Conditions:
G-1 [Business License] Prior to commencement of any work on site, all contractors and subcontractors shall obtain a valid City Business License. The general contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that all subcontractors obtain required business license and shall retain copies of said permits on site for verification by City staff.
G-3 [Development Authorization Limited to Plan Set] This permit is granted based on submitted plans dated March 14, 2016 and so identified by Planning and Community Development staff. Revisions to these plans and/or any proposals for modification shall require review and prior authorization from appropriate City entities.
G-6 [Recycling] All work associated with the project shall be done in conformance with the City’s mandatory recycling ordinance (No. 590).
G-7 [Code Compliance] Approval of this application shall not waive the requirement for compliance with the provisions of the DMMC or other applicable City regulations in effect at the time of Permit issuance, unless specifically waived in this Permit authorization.
G-13 [Permit Expiration] This permit shall expire three years from the date of approval, expiring on March 23, 2019, unless substantial construction has been accomplished in reliance upon the Permit. Pursuant to the DMMC, substantial construction is defined as the completion of a minimum of 10 percent of the total amount of construction authorized by the Permit, based on the monetary value of construction costs excluding all costs associated with the acquisition of interest in the project site and all costs associated with the preparation and processing of permits or plans.
G-16 [Compliance with City Noise Regulations] The applicant and all parties involved with implementation of the project shall comply with the regulations of the DMMC with regard to construction noise. The regulations stipulate that all construction activities are limited to the following periods: between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday and between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction activities are prohibited during other hours, on Sundays and on City Holidays.
12 May 2, 2016 Item 13 Resolution No. DRB-2016-07 Project No. ADR15-041 Page 4 of 5
The City’s noise ordinance, DMMC Chapter 9.20, includes the dates of City Holidays and can be viewed on the City’s web page at www.delmar.ca.us.
G-18 [Rules for Construction-related Signage] All construction-related signage posted at the project site shall comply with DMMC Chapter 30.84 (Signs). The pertinent sections of the sign chapter allow installation of a total 5.5 square feet of temporary signage on a residential property (that is cumulative of all signs posted). Such signs may be posted for a maximum of 60 days per calendar year. The restrictions noted above do not apply to the “Development Pending”, “Construction Noise Notice”, and Building Permit signs required by the City as part of the project review process. All construction related signage, including City-required signs, shall be removed prior to final approval of the project.
Special Conditions:
SC-1 [Wall and Column Height] The columns and walls shall be lowered to a maximum height of 42 inches as measured from the top of the column/wall to the outside grade below.
SC-2 [Landscaping Height] All landscaping located between the paved street and site walls and columns shall be replaced with a low-growing variety not to exceed a mature height of one (1) foot above grade.
13 May 2, 2016 Item 13 Resolution No. DRB-2016-07 Project No. ADR15-041 Page 5 of 5
rd PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Design Review Board of the City of Del Mar, this 23 day of March, 2016 by the following vote:
AYES: Chair Curtis, Vice Chair Bekkar and Board Members Michalsky, MacDonald, Ehrenfeld and Levine
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Board Member Haviland [Pending signatures] ______Joe Curtis, Chair Del Mar Design Review Board Del Mar, California
ATTEST:
______Kathleen A. Garcia Planning and Community Development Director Del Mar, California
THIS RESOLUTION AND AGREEMENT IS VALID WHEN SIGNED BY PARTIES TO THE APPLICATION. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL IS BASED ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED CONDITIONS. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ANY STATED CONDITION RENDERS THE PERMIT ADR15-041 NULL AND VOID AND / OR SUBJECT TO CODE ENFORCEMENT.
******************************************************************************
I have read and understand the above conditions of approval for ADR15-041 and hereby agree to abide by all conditions of approval.
______Date Gala Yayla, Yayla Family Trust
14 May 2, 2016 Item 13 MINUTES Del Mar Design Review Board Meeting Wednesday, March 23, 2016 Del Mar Communications Center 240 Tenth Street, Del Mar, California
The minutes set forth the actions taken by the Design Review Board on the matters stated. Audio/video recordings of the Design Review Board proceedings are retained for a period of ten years, in accordance with the City’s Records Retention Schedule. Audio/video recordings, as well as written materials presented to the Design Review Board, including Red Dots (materials provided to the Design Review Board after the agenda was published), are available on the City’s website at www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter or by contacting the Administrative Services Department at (858) 755-9313. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL – 6:00 P.M.
All members present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes stand approved.
STAFF UPDATE
Senior Planner Matt Bator updated the Board on the improvements planned for the intersection of San Dieguito Drive and Jimmy Durante Boulevard.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Art Olson, Avenida Primavera, thanked the Board for their volunteer work. He spoke about disclosures, specifically pertaining to issue identification. He suggested the Board add issue identification to disclosures given for each Item.
Vice Chair Bekkar offered to conduct a training session on solar panels and specifically their impact on neighbors, during an upcoming meeting.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD/STAFF DISCUSSION
UPDATE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMS IN THE CITY OF DEL MAR 2013- 2021 CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT
Planning Manager Adam Birnbaum provided the update. He spoke about the process to implement various housing programs. He spoke about information on the housing element which is available on the City’s website.
15 May 2, 2016 Item 13 DEL MAR DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES March 23, 2016 PAGE 3
Associated improvements would include expansion of the second-story deck on the detached guest unit, raising and modification of the roof on the main residence as well as various site improvements including construction of a freestanding pergola, spa, BBQ area, site walls and exterior lighting.
Board approved the Item, on consent.
ITEM 9 DRB16-003 APN: 300-410-29 Location: 1011 Camino del Mar Applicants/Owners: Canterbury Properties Agent: KEA Architecture Zone: CC Environmental Status: Exempt Contact Person: Breann Guzman, Planning Department Description: A request for a Design Review Permit to expand existing on-site restrooms by 69sq.ft. to accommodate ADA accessibility.
Board approved the Item, on consent.
ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATIONS(S)
ITEM 1 ADR15-041 APN: 300-390-09 Location: 545 Rimini Road Applicants/Owners: Gala Yayla Zone: R1-10 Environmental Status: Exempt Contact Person: Joseph Smith, AICP, Senior Planner Description: A request for an Administrative Design Review Permit for previously-constructed entry columns and walls, driveway columns, and planter walls along the north end of the property in the Rimini Road public right- of-way. On January 19, 2016, the City Council approved a separate but related Encroachment Permit, EP15-048, for the proposed improvements.
Board Member Haviland was recused on the Item.
16 May 2, 2016 Item 13 DEL MAR DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES March 23, 2016 PAGE 4
Senior Planner Joseph Smith provided the staff report with a PowerPoint Presentation.
Board asked about similar applications from the past for development in the public right-of-way; it was suggested that typically the City has not allowed such structures over the minimum height required at the front property line.
It was disclosed that all members visited the site, read the reports and spoke to the neighbors. Members identified issues as being bulk and mass, inconsistencies with community plan or zoning ordinances, and interference with public access. Public nuisance and vehicle pedestrian circulation were also identified as potential issues.
Gala Yayla, applicant, spoke about the history of the process regarding the wall. She spoke about the wall as an aesthetic aspect of her home. She spoke about similar walls in the City as well as about conversations with neighbors who were in support of the wall.
Chairman Curtis opened the Item to public comment and the following people spoke in support of the wall:
Jill Coughlin, Van Dyke Avenue Wilson Hambrick, Rimini Road Kelly Kaplan, Rimini Road
The following people spoke in opposition to the wall:
Betty Wheeler, appellant, Seaview Court
Gala Yayla, applicant, gave her rebuttal. She reiterated suggestions that the wall does not cause a public nuisance.
Chairman Curtis closed the Item to public comment.
Board discussed the Item. They discussed the importance of following community rules and regulations. They expressed concerns about the effect of the encroachment in the right-of-way
17 May 2, 2016 Item 13 DEL MAR DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES March 23, 2016 PAGE 5 on parking and traffic movement at that location. There was consensus that the wall would not have been approved if it had been brought to the Board before construction due to its height and position. Board members cited DROs regarding the wall being out of scale with the community and its bulk and mass. Board discussed the vegetation and its potential for growth, but there was some disagreement as to whether the vegetation need be removed and replaced with a lower growing species. There was consensus that the wall and columns be allowed, but lowered to the 42-inch maximum pursuant to staff’s recommended conditions.
IT WAS MOVED BY VICE CHAIR BEKKAR, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER LEVINE, TO APPROVE THE ITEM, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SC-1 (HEIGHT TO BE LOWERED TO 42 INCHES) BUT NOT SC-2 (VEGETATION REPLACEMENT WITH SPECIES NOT TO EXCEED ONE FOOT AT MATURITY).
MOTION WAS AMENDED BY BOARD MEMBER EHRENFELD, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER LEVINE, TO APPROVE THE ITEM INCLUDING BOTH CONDITIONS SC-1 AND SC-2. MOTION PASSED 6-0, WITH BOARD MEMBER HAVILAND RECUSED.
ITEM 2 ADR16-001 APN: 300-251-26 Location: 527 Orchid Lane Applicants/Owners: Patricia Shaw Zone: R1-10 Environmental Status: Exempt Contact Person: Breann Guzman, Planning Department Description: A request for an Administrative Design Review Permit to install a new vinyl fence at the site of an existing single- family residence.
Breann Guzman, Planning Intern, provided the staff report with a PowerPoint Presentation.
Board asked whether the previously existing fence was permitted; it was not known.
Board disclosed that they had visited the site, examined the fence, met with the applicant. Board members identified issues as
18 May 2, 2016 Item 13 Attachment B - Appeal Letter
19 May 2, 2016 Item 13 Attachment C - Encroachment Permit Approval
20 May 2, 2016 Item 13 21 May 2, 2016 Item 13 22 May 2, 2016 Item 13 23 May 2, 2016 Item 13 Attachment D - Objection Letter on ADR Review (resulted in review by DRB)
24 May 2, 2016 Item 13 25 May 2, 2016 Item 13 26 May 2, 2016 Item 13 27 May 2, 2016 Item 13 28 May 2, 2016 Item 13 Attachment E - Vicinity Map & Aerial
29 May 2, 2016 Item 13 Attachment F - Pre-existing Photos 2007 & 2012
2007 Photos Pre-Existing Conditions
30 May 2, 2016 Item 13 2012 Photos Pre-Existing Conditions
31 May 2, 2016 Item 13 Attachment G - Existing Condition Photos 2015
2015 Photos
32 May 2, 2016 Item 13 Attachment H - Site Survey with Pre-existing Conditions Existing Conditions
Property Line
Paved Street
N
33 May 2, 2016 Item 13 Attachment I - Photo Survey of Rimini Rd (from Luneta to Via Alta)
545 Rimini Rd
N
34 May 2, 2016 Item 13 Intersection of Luneta/Van Dyke – heading east
35 May 2, 2016 Item 13 36 May 2, 2016 Item 13 Van Dyke & Rimini split
37 May 2, 2016 Item 13 Rimini Rd – continuing east
38 May 2, 2016 Item 13 Applicant’s property at 545 Rimini Rd
39 May 2, 2016 Item 13 Rimini Rd changes to Umatilla
40 May 2, 2016 Item 13 Umatilla/Via Alta intersection ahead
41 May 2, 2016 Item 13 Attachment J - Recent Correspondence and Past Items from DRB and Council Meetings
42 May 2, 2016 Item 13 Attachment J - Past Correspondence from DRB and City Council Meetings
43 May 2, 2016 Item 13 44 May 2, 2016 Item 13 45 May 2, 2016 Item 13 46 May 2, 2016 Item 13 47 May 2, 2016 Item 13 48 May 2, 2016 Item 13 49 May 2, 2016 Item 13 50 May 2, 2016 Item 13 51 May 2, 2016 Item 13 52 MayOctober 2, 5, 2016 2015Item Item 13 13 October 5, 2015 Item 13
53 May 2, 2016 Item 13 54 MayOctober 2, 5, 2016 2015Item Item 13 13 1 October 5, 2015 Item 13 55 May 2, 2016 Item 13 City of Del Mar Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Kristen Crane, Management Services Director Via Scott W. Huth, City Manager Prepared by Scott Gerdes, City Manager Intern
DATE: May 2, 2016
SUBJECT: Reintroduction of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 11.36 to the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) to Prohibit the Use of Single-Use Plastic Carry- Out Bags
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council reintroduce an amended ordinance (Attachment A) to create DMMC Chapter 11.36 to prohibit the use of single-use plastic carry-out bags and implement other provisions related to other types of carry-out bags.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
On February 16, 2016, the City Council conducted a public hearing and introduced a redline version of a proposed ordinance adding Chapter 11.36 to the Del Mar Municipal Code prohibiting the use of single-use plastic carry-out bags. During this meeting, changes were made to the ordinance (the redline version) that were not reviewed with all stakeholders. Following the first reading, concerns were raised by the business community about the redline version of the ordinance and implementation of certain aspects of the requirements.
To remedy these concerns, staff did not proceed with the second reading of the ordinance and instead met with stakeholder groups in an effort to address concerns and issues raised by the Sustainability Advisory Board and the business community. Many of the concerns raised by the business community generally centered on the fact that Del Mar’s original ordinance was modeled off Solana Beach’s ordinance and was felt by the business community to be more suited to big box retailers, grocery stores, and national retail chains as opposed to smaller, independent, tourist-based retail businesses.
While there are several alterations to the new ordinance now being reintroduced, the major modification is that plastic bags that are at least 2.25 mils thick will be allowed to ______City Council Action:
1 May 2, 2016 Item 14 City Council Staff Report Reintroduction of an Ordinance Prohibiting Use of Single-Use Plastic Carry-Out Bags May 2, 2016 Page 2 of 3 be used as reusable bags. Also important is that in order to encourage consumers to bring their own reusable bags and/or to dissuade shoppers from choosing a bag if not necessary, businesses will be required to charge a minimum of $0.10 fee for all thicker plastic reusable bags provided, as well as a minimum $0.10 fee for recycled paper bags. This means there is a minimum $0.10 fee for all carry-out bags. This was discussed with and agreed to by business community representatives during a joint meeting with representatives from the Sustainability Advisory Board Plastic Bag Ban Subcommittee.
In addition to these two most significant changes, Attachment B includes a summary of all the modifications to the ordinance between the originally introduced version and the attached revised version proposed for adoption now (Attachment A).
In addition to the implementation plans discussed in the original February 16, 2016 staff report for this ordinance (Attachment C), DMVA has also expressed interest and willingness to host a plastic bag recycling receptacle at their office location.
Should the City Council approve the ordinance, it is anticipated to be brought back for a second public reading and adoption at the May 16, 2016 Council meeting. The SAB is recommending a six-month phased implementation for retail establishments and a one- year phased implementation for restaurants and the Del Mar Farmers Market. The proposed ban would not be applicable to the Del Mar Fairgrounds.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Development of the ordinance recommended by the SAB required staff time and legal review by the City Attorney. Based on City Council direction, implementation will require staff time, as well as ongoing education for the business community and any necessary enforcement. Incidental costs for public education outreach efforts, including access to the “Bag It” movie and the purchase of the reusable bags can be accommodated using Solid Waste-Recycling funds, within the City’s current operating budget. The estimated cost for purchasing rights to access the “Bag It” film and reusable bags is estimated to not exceed $2,000. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Neither this report, nor a future ordinance banning single use plastic bags, are considered a project pursuant to CEQA requirements. PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: On December 7, 2015 the City Council directed staff to develop an ordinance. On February 16, 2016 the City Council introduced the ordinance.
2 May 2, 2016 Item 14 City Council Staff Report Reintroduction of an Ordinance Prohibiting Use of Single-Use Plastic Carry-Out Bags May 2, 2016 Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Amended Ordinance, DMMC Chapter 11.36 for Reintroduction
Attachment B – Summary of Ordinance Modifications
Attachment C - City Council Staff Report from February 16, 2016 – Introduction of an Ordinance Prohibiting Single-Use Plastic Carry-Out Bags
3 May 2, 2016 Item 14 Attachment A
ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA ADDING CHAPTER 11.36 TO THE DEL MAR MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF SINGLE- USE PLASTIC CARRY-OUT BAGS
WHEREAS, about nineteen billion (19,000,000,000) single use bags are used annually in California but less than 5% are recycled; and
WHEREAS, it is the City’s desire whenever possible to conserve resources, reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, waste, beach litter, and marine pollution and to protect the public health and welfare including wildlife, all of which increase the quality of life for Del Mar’s residents and visitors; and
WHEREAS, various businesses within the City distribute single-use, disposable carry-out bags to their customers; and
WHEREAS, numerous studies have documented the prevalence of single use plastic carry out bags littering the environment, blocking storm drains, fouling beaches and the ocean environment; and
WHEREAS, the City’s taxpayers must bear the brunt of the clean-up costs; and
WHEREAS, plastic bags are a significant source of marine debris and are hazardous to marine animals and birds which often confuse single-use plastic carry-out bags for a source of food. The ingestion of these bags can result in reduced nutrient absorption and death to birds and marine animals; and
WHEREAS, single use paper bags are made from renewable resources and are much less environmentally problematic than single use plastic bags, yet they do require environmental resources to manufacture, transport, and recycle and/or dispose of; and
WHEREAS, from an overall environmental and economic perspective, the best alternative to single-use plastic carryout bags and paper carry-out bags is a shift to reusable bags; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance permits stores to implement incentives to generate a shift in consumer behavior towards the use of reusable bags and significantly reducing single-use bag consumption; and
WHEREAS, studies document that banning plastic bags and placing a mandatory charge on paper bags will dramatically reduce the use of both types of bags; and
4 May 2, 2016 Item 14 ORDINANCE NO. ____
WHEREAS, there are alternatives to single-use carry-out bags; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Del Mar conducted a noticed public hearing regarding the initial proposed ordinance at their regularly scheduled meeting on February 16, 2016 and an additional public hearing to re-introduce the revised ordinance at their regularly scheduled meeting on May 2, 2016. The public hearing was advertised pursuant to applicable law and testimony was invited and received; and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based upon the common sense exemption under 14 CCR 15061 (b)(3) and the reasoning in the California Supreme Court case Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach, 52 Cal. 4th 155 (2011); and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance does not preempt compliance with the California Retail Food Code or any other state of federal law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to add Chapter 11.36 to the Del Mar Municipal Code (“DMMC”), entitled “Single-Use Plastic Carry-Out Bag Use Reduction” to provide for restrictions on the use of plastic bags within the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Del Mar hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION ONE:
Section 11.36.010 of the Del Mar Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:
11.36.010 Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the health, safety and general welfare of City of Del Mar residents and visitors; to conserve natural resources, to reduce beach litter and marine pollution, and to protect local wildlife.
SECTION TWO:
Section 11.36.020 of the Del Mar Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:
11.36.020 Definitions. The following definitions shall be applicable when the following words or phrases are used hereafter in this ordinance, whether or not these words or phrases are capitalized:
Bag Cost Pass-Through: means the cost which must be collected by retailers from their customers when providing a recycled paper bag or reusable bag.
5 May 2, 2016 Item 14 ORDINANCE NO. ____
Food Vendor: means any person or establishment in the City of Del Mar, that provides prepared food for public consumption on or off its premises and includes, without limitation, any store, shop, sales outlet, restaurant, grocery store, delicatessen, or catering truck or vehicle.
Garment Bag: means a bag designed to transport and protect suits, dresses, coats, or like without crushing or wrinkling.
Grocery Store: means any retail establishment that sells groceries, fresh, packaged, canned, dry, prepared or frozen food or beverage products and similar items, and includes without limitation, supermarkets, convenience stores, liquor stores and gasoline stations.
Non-Profit Vendor: means a recognized tax exempt organization which provides goods as part of its services.
Pharmacy: means any retail store, where prescriptions, medications, controlled or over the counter drugs, personal care products or health supplement goods or vitamins are sold, but excluding any licensed pharmacy located within a hospital.
Product Bag: means any bag, provided to a customer for use at a retail establishment or the Farmers Market to assist in the collection or transport of products such as liquid-based take-out foods, produce, bulk items, meat, fish or poultry to protect a purchased item from causing damage or contamination.
Recyclable Paper Bag: means a paper bag that meets all of the following requirements: (1) contains no old growth fiber; (2) is one hundred percent (100%) recyclable overall and contains a minimum of forty percent (40%) post-consumer recycled material; (3) is capable of composting, consistent with the timeline and specifications of the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D6400; and (4) is accepted for recycling in curbside programs in the City; and (5) has printed on the bag the name of the manufacturer, the location where the bag was manufactured, and the percentage of post-consumer recycled material used; and (6) displays the word "Recyclable" in a highly visible manner on the outside of the bag.
Restaurant: means any person or establishment doing business within the City of Del Mar that provides prepared food or beverages for consumption on or off its premises such as a
6 May 2, 2016 Item 14 ORDINANCE NO. ____ restaurant, café, bakery, grocery or convenience store food counter or delicatessen, or catering truck vehicle.
Retail Establishment: means any person, including any corporation, partnership, business, facility, vendor, organization or individual that sells or provides merchandise, goods, services, or materials, including, without limitation, clothing, food, or personal items of any kind, directly to a customer; retail establishment includes, without limitation, any grocery store, department store, hardware store, pharmacy, liquor store, restaurant, catering truck, convenience store, and any other retail store or vendor.
Reusable Bag: means a bag with handles that is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse and meets all of the following requirements: (1) is machine washable or is made from a material that can be cleaned or disinfected; (2) is manufactured in compliance with state, federal, and local laws; and (3) if made of plastic, is a minimum of at least 2.25 mils thick.
Single-Use Plastic Carry-Out Bag: means any bag that is less than 2.25 mils thick and is made predominately of plastic derived from petroleum or from bio-based sources, such as corn or other plant sources.
Vendor: means any store, shop, restaurant, sales outlet or other commercial establishment located within or doing business within the City of Del Mar, which provides perishable or nonperishable goods.
SECTION THREE:
Section 11.36.030 of the Del Mar Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:
11.36.030 Prohibitions
A. No Retail Establishment in the City shall provide a Single-Use Plastic Carry-Out Bag to a customer unless otherwise permitted pursuant to DMMC Section 11.36.050.
B. No Retail Establishment in the City shall provide any type of bag to a customer at the point of sale except a Reusable Bag or a Recycled Paper Bag unless otherwise permitted pursuant to DMMC Section 11.36.050.
7 May 2, 2016 Item 14 ORDINANCE NO. ____
C. No person shall distribute a Single-Use Plastic Carry- Out Bag at any City Facility, City-managed concession, City sponsored event, or City permitted event unless otherwise permitted pursuant to DMMC Section 11.36.050.
D. No person shall distribute a Single-Use Plastic Carry- Out Bag at any Farmers Market within the City of Del Mar unless otherwise permitted pursuant to DMMC Section 11.36.050.
E. Nothing in this Chapter shall prohibit the provision of bags, including plastic carry-out bags, as may be necessary to comply with the California Retail Food Code or any other state or federal law.
SECTION FOUR:
Section 11.36.040 of the Del Mar Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:
11.36.040 Incentives for use of reusable bags
A. Affected retail establishments are strongly encouraged to provide incentives for the use of reusable bags through passing through the cost of recyclable paper bags and/or reusable bags, through credits or rebates for customers that use reusable bags, and/or through education. Such incentives may include one or more of the following:
1. An affected Retail Establishment may provide a Recyclable Paper Bag or a Reusable Bag to a customer if it collects a Bag Cost Pass-through from the customer for each Recyclable Paper Bag or Reusable Bag provided. The Bag Cost Pass-Through for Recyclable Paper Bags and Reusable Bags shall be at least $0.10 cents each.
2. Rebate. An affected retail establishment may rebate or otherwise reimburse a customer for use of a reusable bag brought with them to the point of sale prior to the transaction instead of needing a new Reusable Bag or Recyclable Paper Bag.
3. Education. Each retail establishment is strongly encouraged to educate its staff to promote reusable bags and to
8 May 2, 2016 Item 14 ORDINANCE NO. ____ post signs encouraging customers to use reusable bags or to choose to not receive a bag at all.
SECTION FIVE:
Section 11.36.050 of the Del Mar Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:
11.36.050 Exemptions
Notwithstanding the requirements contained in DMMC 11.36.030:
A. A retail establishment shall provide a customer participating in the California Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 123275) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the California Health and Safety Code and a customer participating in the Supplemental Food Program pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 15500) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, with a reusable bag or a recycled paper bag at no cost at the point of sale.
B. The City Manager, or his or her designee, may exempt an affected retail establishment, vendor or non-profit vendor from the requirements of this chapter for a period of up to one additional year after the operative date of this ordinance, upon sufficient showing by the applicant that the provisions of this Chapter would cause undue hardship. The phrase undue hardship includes:
1. Situations where there are no acceptable alternatives to plastic carry-out bags for reasons which are unique to the retail establishment, vendor, or non-profit vendor;
2. Situations where compliance with the requirements of this code would deprive a person of a legally protected right.
C. The provision of Product Bags as defined in this Chapter and Garment Bags by dry cleaners are not prohibited.
D. The provision of single-use bags for the collection and disposal of pet waste is not prohibited.
9 May 2, 2016 Item 14 ORDINANCE NO. ____
SECTION SIX:
Section 11.36.060 of the Del Mar Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:
11.36.060 Remedies
A. The City Manager, or his or her designee, is authorized to establish regulations and to take any and all actions reasonable and necessary to obtain compliance with this Chapter, including, but not limited to, inspecting any retail establishment's premises to verify compliance.
B. The City Manager, or his or her designee, may require a business to disclose the manufacturer they are purchasing their Reusable Bags from and to provide the specifications describing the materials from which the bag is made and/or the thickness of plastic of the bag (if applicable) to verify the bag meets the Reusable Bag definition requirements.
C. The City Manager, or his or her designee, may allow businesses to request an extension to deplete their current inventory of single-use plastic carry out bags.
D. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of an infraction, which shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding $100.00 for the first offense, $200 for the second offense within one year, and $500 for each additional violation within one year; or a misdemeanor, which shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000.00, or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not exceeding six months or by both such fine and imprisonment.
E. The City Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or other equitable relief to enforce this chapter.
F. Administrative enforcement of this ordinance shall proceed pursuant to Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 1.08.
G. Each violation of this chapter shall be considered a separate offense.
10 May 2, 2016 Item 14 ORDINANCE NO. ____
H. The remedies and penalties provided in this section are cumulative and not exclusive, and nothing in this chapter shall preclude any person from pursuing any other remedies provided by law.
I. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, this chapter may be enforced through any remedy as provided for in this section upon its effective date.
SECTION SEVEN:
Section 11.36.070 of the Del Mar Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:
Section 7. Chapter 11.36 of the Del Mar Municipal Code shall become effective and operative as to: 1) retail stores including grocery stores, pharmacies, city facilities, non- profit vendors, and all other retail establishments except for restaurants, food vendors, farmer’s markets, and catering food trucks six (6) months after its adoption by the City Council, 2) restaurants, food vendors, catering food trucks, and farmer’s markets (12) months after its adoption by the City Council.
SECTION EIGHT:
Section 11.36.080 of the Del Mar Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:
Section 8. Within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, the City Clerk of the City of Del Mar shall cause this ordinance to be published pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933.
11 May 2, 2016 Item 14 ORDINANCE NO. ____
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ___ day of ______, 2016.
______SHERRYL PARKS, Mayor City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney City of Del Mar
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF DEL MAR
I, KRISTEN M. CRANE, Acting City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. ____, which has been published pursuant to law, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the ____ day of ______, 2016, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
______Kristen M. Crane, Acting City Clerk City of Del Mar
12 May 2, 2016 Item 14 Attachment B
Summary of Modifications to the Plastic Bag Ban Ordinance
At a working group meeting with representatives from the Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB) Plastic Bag Ban Subcommittee, the Business Support Advisory Committee (BSAC), and the Del Mar Village Association (DMVA), the issues of concern pertaining to the original ordinance adopted February 16, 2016 were identified and resolved through consensus of the meeting participants.
Based on feedback attained through this effort, the following points summarize modifications made to the ordinance that address business community concerns and maintain the objectives of the SAB:
Definitions
A definition was added for “garment bag.” The definition of “product bag” was revised to remove the requirement that product bags be placed in recyclable paper bags or reusable bags, which was an unintended conflict of the original ordinance. Language was added to the definition of retail establishment to clarify the prohibition also applies to businesses that provide services. Reusable Bags
Plastic bags thicker than 2.25 mils are now included in the definition of “reusable bags.” A minimum cost pass-through of $0.10 per bag has been included for reusable bags to equal the cost past-through for recyclable paper bags Carrying distance and volume requirements for reusable bags were removed to allow for smaller reusable bags versus only allowing larger grocery-size reusable bags, which are not suitable in all situations. The imprinting requirements for reusable bags were removed. Language prohibiting heavy metals was simplified to state that the manufacturing and content of the bag must be “…in compliance with state, federal, and local laws…” Recyclable Paper Bags
Imprint requirements for recyclable paper bags were retained.
Exemptions
Language was added to clarify that plastic garment bags (used by dry cleaners) are not prohibited.
13 May 2, 2016 Item 14 Attachment B
Enforcement
Language was added (Section 11.36.060.B) that allows the City Manager, or his or her designee, to require a business to disclose the manufacturer of their reusable bags and the specifications describing the materials from which the bag is made, and/or the thickness of the plastic (if applicable) of the bag to verify if the bag meets the requirements in the definition of reusable bag. Implementation Schedule
Language was added to further clarify which groups will be affected by the phased implementation schedule
14 May 2, 2016 Item 14 City of Del Mar Staff Report
TO: HonorableMayorandCityCouncilMembers FROM: Kristen Crane, Management Services Director Via Scott W. Huth, City Manager Prepared by Scott Gerdes, City Manager Intern
DATE: February16,2016
SUBJECT: Introduction of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 11.36 to the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) to Prohibit the Use of Single-Use Plastic Carry- Out Bags
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce the proposed Ordinance to create DMMC Chapter 11.36 to prohibit the use of single-use plastic carry-out bags.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Over the past few years, the Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB) has been very interested in recommending that the City of Del Mar implement an ordinance to ban the use of plastic bags by retail establishments including restaurants and the Farmers Market. Many cities in California have enacted this type of ordinance, including Solana Beach and Encinitas.
Legislation was approved in 2014 in California authorizing a statewide ban, however that legislation is now subject to a referendum vote in November 2016.
In the interest of moving forward, a subcommittee of the SAB has initiated worked over the past few months with the Surfrider Foundation to develop a proposal for a plastic bag ban in Del Mar. They also met with a member of the Encinitas Environmental Commission, which is comparable to the Del Mar SAB. Additionally, the subcommittee studied the ordinances from the cities of Solana Beach and Encinitas to use as potential models. Part of their research included a survey conducted by the SAB of retail establishments and restaurants about the concept of a plastic bag ban which indicated general support from the business community.
The subcommittee’s proposal for a plastic bag ban was discussed by the full SAB as a recommendation to the City Council. The attached handout provides additional information prepared by the SAB (Attachment A).
15 May 2, 2016 Item 14 1 February 16, 2016 Item 07 City Council Staff Report Introduction of an Ordinance Prohibiting Use of Single-Use Plastic Carry-Out Bags February 16, 2016 Page 2 of 3
Members of the SAB attended the November 23, 2015 meeting of the Business Support Advisory Committee (BSAC) to provide an overview of their proposal and to seek feedback from the BSAC. The BSAC was generally accepting of the concept of a plastic bag ban for retail businesses, with modifications for special circumstances related to restaurants (e.g., transportation of hot liquid take-out foods, like soup). Additionally, they recommended incorporating an implementation extension as necessary to allow businesses to deplete their current inventory of plastic bags. The BSAC also raised questions about how enforcement would work, as well as how a ban in Del Mar would be affected by any future statewide ban.
At the December 7, 2015 City Council meeting, members of the SAB made a presentation to the City Council on their recommendation for a plastic bag ban. The City Council proceeded to direct staff to develop an ordinance.
At the Council meeting, an inquiry was raised about the cost to the City to clean plastic bags from Del Mar’s beaches. In response to that inquiry, staff estimated that of the $289,930 allocated to the Beach Maintenance budget for FY 2016, about 0.5% or $1,450 goes toward cleaning plastic bags from the beaches.
The SAB also hosted an open house as part of their meeting on December 17, 2015, to further explain their proposal and seek feedback from the community. No members of the community attended the open house.
Attached for City Council consideration is a proposed ordinance prohibiting the use of single-use plastic carry-out bags. This ordinance is based largely on those of Encinitas and Solana Beach. The recommendations of the BSAC have been incorporated into the proposed ordinance.
The proposed ordinance will prohibit retail establishments including restaurants and the Farmers Market from providing any type of bag to a customer at the point of sale except a reusable bag or a recycled paper bag unless otherwise permitted under the exemptions section. In addition, affected retail establishments are strongly encouraged to provide incentives for the use of reusable bags by passing through the cost of recycled bags and/or by providing rebates for the use of reusable bags. A paper bag cost pass-through incentive to provide a recycled paper bag shall not be less than $0.10 cents. Also, affected retail establishments may provide rebates to customers who use reusable bags.
Should the City Council approve the ordinance, it is anticipated to be brought back for a second public reading and adoption at the March 7, 2016 Council meeting. The SAB is recommending a six-month phased implementation for retail establishments and a one- year phased implementation for restaurants and the Del Mar Farmers Market. The proposed ban would not be applicable to the Del Mar Fairgrounds.
16 May 2, 2016 Item 14 2 February 16, 2016 Item 07 City Council Staff Report Introduction of an Ordinance Prohibiting Use of Single-Use Plastic Carry-Out Bags February 16, 2016 Page 3 of 3
As part of implementation of this ordinance the following public education efforts have been identified by the SAB:
Public education forum to be held at Powerhouse Community Center, featuring a viewing of a documentary film entitled “Bag It”; Partnering with Del Mar TV to play “Bag It” on Channel 24; Using Solid Waste-Recycling funds to purchase: o Reusable bags to be made available to local retailers in partnership with the Del Mar Village Association (an initial quantity for the purpose of public education); o Reusable/washable mesh bags suitable for carrying produce to be given away at the Farmers Market (an initial quantity for the purpose of public education); Posting information on the City’s web site about the City’s ban and education resources exploring the purpose; and Issuing a press release and submitting an article to the Sandpiper exploring how the City’s ban works and the purpose.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Development of the ordinance recommended by the SAB required staff time and legal review by the City Attorney. Based on City Council direction, implementation will require staff time, as well as ongoing education for the business community and any necessary enforcement. Incidental costs for public education outreach efforts, including access to the “Bag It” movie and the purchase of the reusable bags can be accommodated using Solid Waste-Recycling funds, within the City’s current operating budget. The estimated cost for purchasing rights to access the “Bag It” film and reusable bags is estimated to not exceed $2,000.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
Neither this report, nor a future ordinance banning single use plastic bags, are considered a project pursuant to CEQA requirements.
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
On December 7, 2015 the City Council directed staff to develop an ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Sustainability Advisory Board – Plastic Bag Ban Proposal Attachment B – Proposed Ordinance, DMMC Chapter 11.36
17 May 2, 2016 Item 14 3 February 16, 2016 Item 07 Attachment A
City of Del Mar Sustainability Committee
Proposed Del Mar Plastic Bag Ban data and discussion points 1. Del Mar’s interests include: a. Conservation of resources b. Reducing beach litter and marine pollution c. Promotion of Del Mar as a environmentally aware city 2. Plastic Bags are a source of litter a. Not biodegradable, have low recycling rate (-5%) b. Often left on our beaches for us to clean up (San Diego pays $160,000 a year) 3. Research by Committee a. Met with representatives of the Surfrider Foundation and the Encinitas Environmental Commission b. Reviewed plastic bag ban ordinances from Encinitas and Solara Beach c. Face-to-face survey with most Del Mar retail establishments d. Met with Business Support Advisory Committee e. California Grocer Association supports the ban
4. What other cities have plastic bag bans? a. 114 Ordinances covering 142 municipalities in California b. Encinitas and Solana Beach have already passed ordinances c. City of San Diego (including Del Mar Highlands and Flower Hill Mall) in the process 5 Proposal a. Use of single use plastic bags will be banned at all retail and restaurants after a 6 – 12 month phase in period (see below) b. Paper bags can be made available for a minimum of 10 cents each 5. Essentially no costs to retailers over time a. Plastic bags cost 1 to 4 cents b. Paper bags 6 to 12 cents (this cost can be passed to consumer) c. In Los Angeles County, a study showed that reusable bag use increased from 15% to over 75% after ordinance implementation, 6. Proposed timeline for Del Mar a. Present to City Council December 7, 2015 as “Discussion Item” b. Outreach to business and other Del Mar committees c. Public can attend and ask questions at our committee meeting on December 17, 2015 d. First and second reading at City Council on February 16 and March 7, 2016 e. City-wide implementation: i. Phase 1 (retail) October 6, 2016 ii. Phase 2 (restaurant and farmers market) April, 6, 2017
18 May 2, 2016 Item 14 4 February 16, 2016 Item 07 Attachment B
ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA ADDING CHAPTER 11.36 TO THE DEL MAR MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF SINGLE- USE PLASTIC CARRY-OUT BAGS
WHEREAS, about nineteen billion (19,000,000,000) single use bags are used annually in California but less than 5% are recycled; and
WHEREAS, it is the City’s desire whenever possible to conserve resources, reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, waste, beach litter, and marine pollution and to protect the public health and welfare including wildlife, all of which increase the quality of life for Del Mar’s residents and visitors; and
WHEREAS, various businesses within the City distribute single-use, disposable carry-out bags to their customers; and
WHEREAS, numerous studies have documented the prevalence of single use plastic carry out bags littering the environment, blocking storm drains, fouling beaches and the ocean environment; and
WHEREAS, the City’s taxpayers must bear the brunt of the clean-up costs; and
WHEREAS, plastic bags are a significant source of marine debris and are hazardous to marine animals and birds which often confuse single-use plastic carry-out bags for a source of food. The ingestion of these bags can result in reduced nutrient absorption and death to birds and marine animals; and
WHEREAS, single use paper bags are made from renewable resources and are much less environmentally problematic than single use plastic bags, yet they do require environmental resources to manufacture, transport, and recycle and/or dispose of; and
WHEREAS, from an overall environmental and economic perspective, the best alternative to single-use plastic carryout bags and paper carry-out bags is a shift to reusable bags; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance permits stores to implement incentives to generate a shift in consumer behavior towards the use of reusable bags and significantly reducing single-use bag consumption; and
WHEREAS, studies document that banning plastic bags and placing a mandatory charge on paper bags will dramatically reduce the use of both types of bags; and
19 May 2, 2016 Item 14 5 February 16, 2016 Item 07 ORDINANCE NO. ____
WHEREAS, there are several alternatives to single-use carry-out bags readily available in the City, including reusable bags produced from sustainable materials; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Del Mar conducted a noticed public hearing regarding the proposed ordinance at their regular scheduled meeting of February 16, 2016. The public hearing was advertised pursuant to applicable law and testimony was invited and received; and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based upon the commonsense exemption under 14 CCR 15061 (b)(3) and the reasoning in the California Supreme Court case Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach, 52 Cal. 4th 155 (2011); and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance does not preempt compliance with the California Retail Food Code or any other state of federal law.
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to add Chapter 11.36 to the Del Mar Municipal Code (“DMMC”), entitled “Singe-Use Plastic Carry-Out Bag Use Reduction” to provide for restrictions on the use of plastic bags within the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Del Mar hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION ONE:
Section 11.36.010 of the Del Mar Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:
11.36.010 Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the health, safety and general welfare of City of Del Mar residents and visitors; to conserve natural resources, to reduce beach litter and marine pollution, and to protect local wildlife.
SECTION TWO:
Section 11.36.020 of the Del Mar Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:
11.36.020 Definitions. The following definitions shall be applicable when the following words or phrases are used hereafter in this ordinance, whether or not these words or phrases are capitalized:
20 May 2, 2016 Item 14 6 February 16, 2016 Item 07 ORDINANCE NO. ____
Food Vendor: means any person or establishment in the City of Del Mar, that provides prepared food for public consumption on or off its premises and includes, without limitation, any store, shop, sales outlet, restaurant, grocery store, delicatessen, or catering truck or vehicle.
Grocery Store: means any retail establishment that sells groceries, fresh, packaged, canned, dry, prepared or frozen food or beverage products and similar items, and includes without limitation, supermarkets, convenience stores, liquor stores and gasoline stations.
Non-Profit Vendor: means a recognized tax exempt organization which provides goods as part of its services.
Paper Bag Cost Pass-Through: means the cost which may be collected by retailers from their customers when providing a recycled paper bag.
Pharmacy: means any retail store, where prescriptions, medications, controlled or over the counter drugs, personal care products or health supplement goods or vitamins are sold, but excluding any licensed pharmacy located within a hospital.
Product Bag: means any bag, provided to a customer for use at a retail establishment or the Farmers Market to assist in the collection or transport of products such as liquid-based take-out foods, produce, bulk items, meat, fish, poultry, dry cleaning or laundry or to protect a purchased item from damaging or contaminating other purchased items when placed together in a recycled paper bag or reusable bag.
Recyclable Paper Bag: means a paper bag that meets all of the following requirements: (1) contains no old growth fiber; (2) is one hundred percent (100%) recyclable overall and contains a minimum of forty percent (40%) post-consumer recycled material; (3) is capable of composting, consistent with the timeline and specifications of the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D6400; (4) is accepted for recycling in curbside programs in the City; (5) has printed on the bag the name of the manufacturer, the location where the bag was manufactured, and the percentage of post-consumer recycled material used; and (6) displays the word "Recyclable" in a highly visible manner on the outside of the bag.
21 May 2, 2016 Item 14 7 February 16, 2016 Item 07 ORDINANCE NO. ____
Restaurant: means any person or establishment doing business within the City of Del Mar that provides prepared food or beverages for consumption on or off its premises such as a restaurant, café, bakery, grocery or convenience store food counter or delicatessen, or catering truck vehicle.
Retail Establishment: means any person, including any corporation, partnership, business, facility, vendor, organization or individual that sells or provides merchandise, goods or materials, including, without limitation, clothing, food, or personal items of any kind, directly to a customer; retail establishment includes, without limitation, any grocery store, department store, hardware store, pharmacy, liquor store, restaurant, catering truck, convenience store, and any other retail store or vendor.
Reusable Bag: means a bag with handles that is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse and meets all of the following requirements: (1) has a minimum lifetime of 125 uses, which for purposes of this subsection, means the capability of carrying a minimum of 22 pounds 125 times over a distance of at least 175 feet; (2) has a minimum volume of 15 liters; (3) is machine washable or is made from a material that can be cleaned or disinfected; (4) does not contain lead, cadmium, or any other heavy metal in toxic amounts, as defined by applicable state and federal standards and regulations for packaging or reusable bags; (5) has printed on the bag, or on a tag that is permanently affixed to the bag, the name of the manufacturer, the location (country) where the bag was manufactured, a statement that the bag does not contain lead, cadmium, or any other heavy metal in toxic amounts, and the percentage of post-consumer recycled material used, if any; and (6) if made of plastic, is a minimum of at least 2.25 mils thick.
Single-Use Plastic Carry-Out Bag: means any bag that is less than 2.25 mils thick and is made predominately of plastic derived from petroleum or from bio-based sources, such as corn or other plant sources.
Vendor: means any store, shop, restaurant, sales outlet or other commercial establishment located within or doing business within the City of Del Mar, which provides perishable or nonperishable goods.
22 May 2, 2016 Item 14 8 February 16, 2016 Item 07 ORDINANCE NO. ____
SECTION THREE:
Section 11.36.030 of the Del Mar Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:
11.36.030 Prohibitions
A. No Retail Establishment in the City shall provide a Single-Use Plastic Carry-Out Bag to a customer unless otherwise permitted pursuant to DMMC Section 11.36.050.
B. No Retail Establishment in the City shall provide any type of bag to a customer at the point of sale except a Reusable Bag or a Recycled Paper Bag unless otherwise permitted pursuant to DMMC Section 11.36.050.
C. No person shall distribute a Single-Use Plastic Carry- Out Bag at any City Facility, City-managed concession, City sponsored event, or City permitted event unless otherwise permitted pursuant to DMMC Section 11.36.050.
D. No person shall distribute a Single-Use Plastic Carry- Out Bag at any Farmers Market within the City of Del Mar unless otherwise permitted pursuant to DMMC Section 11.36.050.
E. Nothing in this Chapter shall prohibit the provision of bags, including plastic carry-out bags, as may be necessary to comply with the California Retail Food Code or any other state or federal law.
SECTION FOUR:
Section 11.36.040 of the Del Mar Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:
11.36.040 Incentives for use of reusable bags
A. Affected retail establishments are strongly encouraged to provide incentives for the use of reusable bags through passing through the cost of recycled bags, through credits or rebates for customers that use reusable bags, or through education. Such incentives may include one or more of the following:
23 May 2, 2016 Item 14 9 February 16, 2016 Item 07 ORDINANCE NO. ____
1. Subject to subsection (2) of this Section, an affected Retail Establishment may provide a Recycled Paper Bag to a customer if it collects a Paper Bag Cost Pass-through from the customer for each Recycled Paper Bag provided.
2. The paper bag cost pass-through shall not be less than $0.10 cents unless a store has previously submitted a full accounting to the City, signed by a responsible manager under penalty of perjury that identifies all costs including bag purchase, shipping, handling and storage, showing a lesser actual cost to the store for each bag. Any such accounting shall expire one year from the date of original submission and a new accounting would need to be resubmitted.
B. Rebate. An affected retail establishment may rebate or otherwise reimburse a customer for use of a reusable bag.
C. Each retail establishment is strongly encouraged to educate its staff to promote reusable bags and to post signs encouraging customers to use reusable bags.
SECTION FIVE:
Section 11.36.050 of the Del Mar Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:
11.36.050 Exemptions
Notwithstanding the requirements contained in DMMC 11.36.030:
A. A retail establishment shall provide a customer participating in the California Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 123275) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the California Health and Safety Code and a customer participating in the Supplemental Food Program pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 15500) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, with a reusable bag or a recycled paper bag at no cost at the point of sale.
24 May 2, 2016 Item 14 10 February 16, 2016 Item 07 ORDINANCE NO. ____
B. The City Manager, or his or her designee, may exempt an affected retail establishment, vendor or non-profit vendor from the requirements of this chapter for a period of up to one additional year after the operative date of this ordinance, upon sufficient showing by the applicant that the provisions of this Chapter would cause undue hardship. The phrase undue hardship includes:
1. Situations where there are no acceptable alternatives to plastic carry-out bags for reasons which are unique to the retail establishment, vendor or non-profit vendor;
2. Situations where compliance with the requirements of this code would deprive a person of a legally protected right.
C. The provision of Product Bags as defined in this Chapter is not prohibited.
D. The provision of single-use bags for the collection and disposal of pet waste is not prohibited.
SECTION SIX:
Section 11.36.060 of the Del Mar Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:
11.36.060 Remedies
A. The City Manager, or his or her designee, is authorized to establish regulations and to take any and all actions reasonable and necessary to obtain compliance with this Chapter, including, but not limited to, inspecting any retail establishment's premises to verify compliance.
B. The City Manager or his or her designee, may allow businesses to request an extension to deplete their current inventory of single-use plastic carry out bags.
C. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of an infraction, which shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding $100.00 for the first offense, $200 for the second offense within one year, and $500 for each additional violation within one year; or a misdemeanor, which shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000.00, or by imprisonment in the county jail
25 May 2, 2016 Item 14 11 February 16, 2016 Item 07 ORDINANCE NO. ____ for a period not exceeding six months or by both such fine and imprisonment. D. The City Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or other equitable relief to enforce this chapter.
E. Administrative enforcement of this ordinance shall proceed pursuant to Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 1.08.
F. Each violation of this chapter shall be considered a separate offense.
G. The remedies and penalties provided in this section are cumulative and not exclusive, and nothing in this chapter shall preclude any person from pursuing any other remedies provided by law.
H. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, this chapter may be enforced through any remedy as provided for in this section upon its effective date.
SECTION SEVEN:
Section 11.36.070 of the Del Mar Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:
Section 7. Chapter 11.36 of the Del Mar Municipal Code shall become effective and operative as to: 1) retail stores including grocery stores, pharmacies, city facilities, non- profit vendors, and all other retail establishments six (6) months after its adoption by the City Council, 2) restaurants, food vendors, and farmer’s markets (12) months after its adoption by the City Council.
SECTION EIGHT:
Section 11.36.080 of the Del Mar Municipal Code is hereby added as follows:
Section 8. Within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, the City Clerk of the City of Del Mar shall cause this ordinance to be published pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933.
26 May 2, 2016 Item 14 12 February 16, 2016 Item 07 ORDINANCE NO. ____
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ___ day of ______, 2016.
______SHERRYL PARKS, Mayor City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney City of Del Mar
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF DEL MAR
I, CONNIE SMITH-BALL, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. ____, which has been published pursuant to law, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the ____ day of ______, 2016, by the following vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
______Connie Smith-Ball, Deputy City Clerk City of Del Mar
27 May 2, 2016 Item 14 13 February 16, 2016 Item 07
April 27, 2016
The California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank) has approved the City’s loan request. Plans for demolition of the existing buildings and clearing the site in preparation for construction are nearing completion, with demolition beginning in June 2016. Relocation to temporary office space will occur in early June.
The City Council has approved a total project budget of
$17.8 million, which includes construction, as well as Construction documentation drawings are well architectural design and environmental review (EIR), plus underway, scheduled for completion in July. costs for furnishings, fixtures, and equipment (FFE) for Design is also in progress on audio/visual the new facility. To date, all expenses for the project are components of the facility, specialized kitchen for costs associated with architectural design, the design, and other specialty areas. environmental review, and the design review processes.
Amount Spent Category Budget City Hall services, including the City Council as of 4/27/16 Chamber, will temporarily relocate to office Construction Costs $12,590,039 $0 space at the Southfair center, located at 2010 Jimmy Durante Boulevard. The move is Design, Engineering, Permits, CEQA EIR, FFE, $3,301,548 $900,7202 scheduled for approximately June 3-6, 2016. Signage, etc. Space at Southfair will include a public Owner’s Contingencies $1,589,159 $0 counter, a room to serve as the City Council (During construction) Chamber/meeting room, and staff work space. The temporary location address will be widely Sustainability Features $364,697 $0
publicized. Phone numbers and mailing Total Budget $17,845,4431 $900,720 address will remain the same. 1 Project budget does not include costs for temporary relocation. 2 Amount does not reflect several outstanding architectural invoices.
Relocation to Temporary Facility Beginning of June Demolition of Existing Buildings June/July Construction Drawings Complete July Finalize details for relocating City offices, the Council Chamber/TV Studio, and Farmers Market. Construction Bid Process August/September Complete preparation of construction drawings. Award Construction Contract September Award contract for demolition on May 16, 2016. Construction Begins October
1 May 2, 2016 Item 15 City of Del Mar
Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Kathleen A. Garcia, Planning and Community Development Director Via Scott W. Huth, City Manager Prepared by Joseph Smith, AICP, Senior Planner
DATE: May 2, 2016
SUBJECT: A Request to Authorize Fencing, and Pedestrian and Vehicle Gates Located Within the San Dieguito Drive Public Right-of-Way Adjacent to 2168 San Dieguito Drive (Encroachment Permit EP16-010) Applicant: Josh and Ashley Rubin (APN 299-072-26)
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the City Manager to conditionally approve the Encroachment Permit (EP) request subject to the suggested conditions of approval in Attachment A. The suggested conditions would require the wall and gates not to exceed a maximum height of 42 inches and a covenant be recorded on the property acknowledging the owner’s responsibilities associated with the encroachments.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The applicant is seeking City approval to authorize private improvements that were partially constructed in the San Dieguito Drive public right-of-way under a recently- approved Administrative Design Review permit (ADR16-007) and Building permit. The improvements include 42-inch tall wood fencing, and pedestrian and driveway gates, located approximately five-feet from the paved street edge. At the time of permit issuance, staff was unaware that the improvements were located in the right-of-way, as the submitted plans inadvertently delineated the improvements on private property. Subsequently, it was found that the improvements were located 15 feet in the right-of- way and a code enforcement case (CE16-066) was opened on March 30, 2016 requiring the receipt of a long-term/major Encroachment Permit. A location map is included as Attachment B.
Pursuant to Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section 23.28.100, EPs shall be approved unless the City Council makes one or more findings of fact as described in subsection A.1-5. Staff is recommending the City Council review and approve the ______City Council Action:
1 May 2, 2016 Item 16 City Council Staff Report Regarding EP16-010 (Rubin, 2168 San Dieguito Drive) May 2, 2016 Page 2 of 6
encroachment request due to the existing character of San Dieguito Drive, prior fencing that existed in this location, and sufficient parking and pedestrian access located on the north side of San Dieguito Drive.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is a rectangular-shaped parcel developed with a newer single- story residence elevated above the minimum base flood elevation (BFE). The property is located on the south side of San Dieguito Drive and across the street from the River Path Del Mar Extension Project site and the Lagoon Viewpoint at the Old Grand Avenue Bridge. Due to the narrow shape of the lot, the residence is sited closer to San Dieguito Drive than other residences located west and upslope from the site. On March 10, 2016, ADR16-007 was approved for the proposed fencing and gates in the requested location. The fencing was intended to replace a wood split-rail fence with columns that had existed in this location (Attachment C). Note that staff was unable to locate a prior EP for the fence and it appears the fencing existed for several decades. Subsequent to receipt of the approved ADR and Building permit, the applicant removed the split-rail fence and began installing posts for the approved fence.
At the time of permit issuance, staff was unaware that the improvements were located in the right-of-way as the submitted plans inadvertently delineated the improvements on private property. Subsequently, it was found that the improvements were located 15 feet in the right-of-way and a code enforcement case (CE16-066) was opened on March 30, 2016 requiring the receipt of a long-term/major Encroachment Permit. On April 4, 2016, the applicant submitted the subject EP application to request authorization for the improvements.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
EP Types and Process
DMMC Chapter 23.28 requires the receipt of an EP for any work, special use, or improvement proposed within a City right-of-way or easement. The subject request is considered a long-term/major EP whereby the City Council is the issuing authority for the request. Long-term/major EPs include substantial encroachments in the right-of- way (e.g., structures above 12-inches in height) or special uses that result in a marked change in the manner in which a right-of-way is used or will function (e.g., enclosure of public right-of-way for private use). However, the majority of EP requests received by the City constitute long-term/minor or short-term EPs, such as construction-related activities or minor improvements including driveway aprons, drainage conveyance, and low-level landscaping.
2 May 2, 2016 Item 16 City Council Staff Report Regarding EP16-010 (Rubin, 2168 San Dieguito Drive) May 2, 2016 Page 3 of 6
EP Findings
Pursuant to DMMC §23.28.100(A), EPs shall be approved unless the issuing authority makes one or more of the following findings of fact:
Finding 1. That the issuance of the EP will endanger public health, safety or welfare, or the surrounding property; or
Finding 2. That the issuance of the EP will unreasonably interfere with the intended use of a City Right-of-Way or Easement; or
Finding 3. That the issuance of the EP will have an adverse impact on the welfare of the community or on the community’s appearance or aesthetics; or
Finding 4. That the issuance of the EP will cause an unnecessary change in the character of the community; or
Finding 5. That the issuance of the EP will be to the detriment of the interests of the general public.
Since the City Council is the issuing authority on a long-term/major EP, it must take action to either approve or deny a request. As a result, a majority vote of the total membership of the City Council is necessary to take action on a resolution to approve or deny the EP (three or more votes). In the absence of a motion (supported by three votes) which establishes that the application should be denied based on one or more of the findings, the application must be approved given the language in DMMC §23.28.100(A). In the event there is a 2-2 tie on a motion to deny and the Council is unable to pass a substitute motion, the application shall be deemed approved.
Subject EP Request (EP16-010)
The subject improvements would be constructed in the location of a recently- demolished split-rail fence. The proposed improvements include a 42-inch high wood slat fence with matching pedestrian and vehicle gates and columns. The improvements would be located parallel to San Dieguito Drive and extend 15-feet into the unimproved portion of the right-of-way. Consistent with past policy applied to private encroachments into the right-of-way, the improvements would not exceed the maximum allowed 42-inch height at the property line and would maintain an approximate five-foot setback from the paved street edge. Photos of the previously existing fence are included in Attachment C, with current photos of the partially-completed improvements included as Attachment D. As previously described under Background, the applicant began construction of the improvements subject to an approved ADR and Building permit.
3 May 2, 2016 Item 16 City Council Staff Report Regarding EP16-010 (Rubin, 2168 San Dieguito Drive) May 2, 2016 Page 4 of 6
The EP application has been reviewed by the Planning Department and Public Works Department and the request does not appear to impact the City's water, sewer, and storm drain system. With respect to access, it is generally considered that any private encroachment into the public right-of-way lessens the possibility of other public services being available in the area, such as on-street parking and pedestrian walkways. However, in this case, sufficient parking and pedestrian access exists on the north side of San Dieguito Drive and additional parking and/or access does not appear necessary on the south side of the street in this location.
Historically, on-street parking on either side of San Dieguito Drive has long been prohibited with exception to parking at the Lagoon Viewpoint and two new parking spaces on the north shoulder of San Dieguito Drive that were authorized by the City Council as part of the River Path Del Mar Extension Project. As a result, the placement of fencing on the south side of San Dieguito Drive in the requested location would not result in a marked change in availability of on-street parking as none previously existed and adequate parking is available in the immediate area.
With respect to pedestrian access, the City Council approved an extension of the River Path Del Mar trail from the intersection of Jimmy Durante Boulevard/San Dieguito Drive to the Lagoon Viewpoint at the Old Grand Avenue Bridge. The trail is currently under construction and meanders along several vacant properties located between the San Dieguito Lagoon and San Dieguito Drive. A secondary trail is aligned along the north shoulder of San Dieguito Drive. The estimated completion date for the trail is scheduled for the end of May 2016. As a result, the placement of fencing on the south side of San Dieguito Drive would not result in a marked change in the availability or need for pedestrian access as none currently exists and adequate access will be provided at the completion of the trail project.
The City’s Zoning Code does not establish height limits for walls that are located in the public right-of-way. However, should an applicant propose to construct a wall outside of the right-of-way and on their private property, the Zoning Code establishes a maximum height of 42-inches at the property line. Staff typically recommends that in the event any structures are developed in the public right-of-way, the structures should be held to the same height restrictions enforced at the property line, in addition to maintaining a minimum 5-foot setback from the paved street. As previously noted, the applicant’s proposal meets these height and setback recommendations and a condition of approval has been included in Exhibit A memorializing these standards.
Typically, in the event an EP is approved, an applicant would then be required to obtain an approved Design Review Permit. However, as previously noted the applicant has an approved ADR and would be allowed to continue construction under that approval. Note that no objection was received during the standard 10-day public review period for the ADR.
4 May 2, 2016 Item 16 City Council Staff Report Regarding EP16-010 (Rubin, 2168 San Dieguito Drive) May 2, 2016 Page 5 of 6
City Council Policy 110 – Private Encroachment into City Rights-of-Way
On October 19, 2015, the City Council adopted Policy 110 related to private encroachments into City rights-of-way (Attachment E). The intent of this policy is to provide guidance to the City Council when considering a request against the findings of fact in DMMC §23.28.100(A). The policy provides guidance as to which types of private encroachments are compatible with and enhance the public areas that City rights-of- way represent and, conversely, which types of encroachments are inappropriate because they would change the character and perception of a right-of-way area to one of being under private ownership and/or benefit rather than being a public space. The policy does recognize the fact that there are several areas of the City where an improved (paved) section of a City right-of-way is narrower that the width of the right-of- way itself. This results in an area of unimproved right-of-way adjacent to private property.
For the subject EP request, staff recommends that the City Council waive use of this policy when considering the findings in DMMC §23.28.100(A). This recommendation is due to the existing character of San Dieguito Drive, prior fencing that existed in this location, and sufficient parking and pedestrian access located on the north side of San Dieguito Drive as previously described.
CORRESPONDENCE:
A letter was provided by the property owners describing their request (Attachment F). As of the writing of this report, no other items of correspondence have been received on this item. In addition, no letters of objection were received during the standard 10-day public review period for the approved ADR. Consistent with DMMC Chapter 23.28, a notice has been mailed to all property owners within 300-feet of the subject property.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending the City Council authorize the City Manager to approve the request subject to the suggested conditions of approval in Attachment A.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There would be no fiscal impact to the City, as this is a private development proposal. All fees associated with entitlement processing and construction of the improvements are paid for by the applicant.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This project is listed among the classes of projects determined to have less than significant adverse effect on the environment and therefore, is exempt from the
5 May 2, 2016 Item 16 City Council Staff Report Regarding EP16-010 (Rubin, 2168 San Dieguito Drive) May 2, 2016 Page 6 of 6
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305(b) – Minor Alterations in Land Use. Staff has further determined none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Staff Recommended Conditions of Approval Attachment B – Location Map Attachment C – Pre-existing Condition Photos Attachment D – Existing Condition Photos Attachment E – Council Policy 110 regarding Encroachments Attachment F – Correspondence
6 May 2, 2016 Item 16 Attachment A - Recommended Conditions of Approval
Draft Conditions for Encroachment Permit EP16-010
Applicant: Josh & Ashley Rubin, 2168 San Dieguito Drive
The following are draft conditions for application EP16-010. The EP would authorize work within the City’s San Dieguito Drive public right-of-way.
[Note: The conditions listed below may have intentional gaps in numbering or lettering.]
General Conditions
GEP-2 [EP – Indemnification] By accepting this permit and implementing the development authorized herein, the applicant agrees to indemnify, defend and save the City of Del Mar, its authorized agents, officers, representatives and employees harmless from and against any and all penalties, liabilities, annoyances, or loss resulting from claims or court action and arising out of any accident, loss or damage to persons or property happening or occurring as a proximate result of any work undertaken under the permit granted pursuant to the application or by reason of the permittee's installation, operation, maintenance or removal of the encroachment.
GEP-3 [EP - Removal of Improvements] The applicant agrees that if any structure, tank, pipe, conduit, duct, tunnel, or other development for which this permit is issued is, at any point in the future, determined by the City to interfere with the use, repair or improvement of the subject right-of-way, the applicant or his or her successors or assigns, shall remove the development within ten (10) days after the receipt of a written notice from the Director of Public Works to do so. The removal shall be accomplished at the expense of the applicant or his or her successors or assigns and shall be removed or relocated to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
GEP-4 [EP - Compliance with Conditions] The applicant hereby agrees to do all work and otherwise comply with the terms and conditions of this permit, and all applicable rules and regulations of the City of Del Mar and/or other public agency.
GEP-5 [EP - Revocation of Permit due to Noncompliance with Conditions] This permit may be revoked by the City if noncompliance is noted to the applicant and satisfactory action is not taken by the applicant or his/her agents to achieve compliance within twenty-four (24) hours of notice.
GEP-7 [EP - Permit Expiration/Potential for Permit Extension] This permit and the authorization for use/work within a City right-of-way herein granted shall expire one year from the date of approval on May 2, 2017. The permittee may request a single Extension of Time of an approved Encroachment Permit by submitting a written request to the City Manager setting forth the reason that substantial work on the permit cannot be commenced by the scheduled expiration date. The City Manager shall grant the extension unless he/she determines that there has been a change in circumstances since the time of the original grant of the permit which
7 May 2, 2016 Item 16 Draft Conditions of Approval EP16-010 Page 2 of 3 would create an inconsistency between the proposed encroachment and the provisions of DMMC Chapter 23.28. No extension shall be granted for a period greater than one (1) year.
GEP-8 [EP - Work to be Performed by a Licensed Contractor] All work authorized by an Encroachment Permit shall be performed by a licensed contractor from one of the following classes: “A” General Engineering Contractor, “C34” Pipeline Contractor or a “C42” Sanitation System Contractor. A copy of such a license shall be provided to the City prior to the commencement of work, and shall be retained at the project site. This requirement may be waived by the Director when the work to be performed is limited to minor improvements or maintenance for residential property adjacent to the City right-of-way or easement and when the work will be performed by the resident or owner of the benefited residential property. This information shall be provided prior to the commencement of any work in a public right-of-way.
GEP-9 [EP - Compliance with CAL-OSHA] The permittee shall obey and enforce all safety orders, rules, regulations, and recommendations of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California, CAL-OSHA, applicable to the work and shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes, and regulations. Any omission on the part of the Director to specify protective measures or devices in the Encroachment Permit shall not excuse the permittee from complying with all applicable requirements of law.
GEP-10 [EP - Timely Performance of Work] If any part of the work performed under an Encroachment Permit is not completed within the period indicated in either the submitted application materials or the conditions of approval of the Encroachment Permit, the Director of Public Works may notify the person performing the work, in writing, to complete the work within forty-eight (48) hours thereafter, legal holidays excepted. If the work is not completed within this time period, the Director of Public Works shall have full power to perform the work, including such measures as will restore the disturbed area to a safe and passable condition until the work can be completed. The cost thereof, including any inspection and administrative overhead costs incurred by City, shall be assessed against the permittee.
GEP-11 [EP - Compliance with City Codes and Permit Conditions] Any person violating any provisions of or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Permit or of DMMC Chapter 23.28 shall be subject to the enforcement provisions set forth in DMMC Chapters 1.08 and 30.98.
GEP-12 [EP - Change of Permit Conditions at Direction of the City] The City retains the right to change conditions of this Permit granted and order the relocation or adjustment of lines, manholes, fixtures, and apparatus hereby allowed to be installed, whenever, in the opinion of the City, this becomes necessary; and desirable. In the event that such an order is made, all changes required pursuant thereto shall be made at the sole expense of the Permittee.
8 May 2, 2016 Item 16 Draft Conditions of Approval EP16-010 Page 3 of 3
GEP-13 [EP - Notification of Utility Owner] The applicant shall notify the appropriate Public Utility a minimum of seventy-two (72) hours prior to performing any work on or adjacent to any public utility. All such work shall be done only with authorization and with inspection by the appropriate utility owner.
GEP-14 [EP - No Authorization for Street Closure] The permit does not authorize closure of any road or street, unless specifically stated on the permit.
GEP-15 [EP - No Transfer in Property Interest] The granting of an encroachment permit pursuant to this chapter shall not constitute the transfer or relinquishment of any ownership or interest held by the City over the public right-of-way, nor shall such permit confer any vested or proprietary rights upon the holder of the permit beyond the right to utilize the encroachment area in the manner authorized by the permit and subject to all of the conditions set forth herein. The applicant agrees to protect all survey markers and monuments in the vicinity of the work and agrees to replace any markers or monuments, if damaged, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
Finance Department Condition
FC-1 [Requirement for Certificate of Insurance and General Liability Insurance] Prior to the commencement of work, the permittee’s contractor shall file a certificate of insurance naming the City of Del Mar as an additionally insured entity and showing evidence of coverage of bodily injury or property damage liability throughout the duration of the project. The coverage shall provide a minimum of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) of liability insurance and shall include an Additional Insured Endorsement form CG-20-10-11-85. The Certificate of Insurance shall not contain any special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, or agents.
The form and content of the certificate of insurance shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City’s Finance Director. The policy shall expressly provide that coverage thereunder shall be primary with respect to any other liability insurance maintained by the city and shall not be reduced or canceled without at least twenty (20) days prior written notice to the City.
The permittee shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or shall obtain separate certificates and General Liability for each subcontractor.
Special Condition
SC-3 [Recordation of Covenant] The applicant shall record a covenant against the deed for the property benefited by the approved Encroachment Permit setting forth the terms and conditions of the Permit, including requirements for the long-term maintenance and the removal of the encroachment upon demand by the City. The covenant shall run with the land and shall be binding on future owners and assigns. The form and content of the covenant shall be to the satisfaction of the Director.
9 May 2, 2016 Item 16 Attachment B - Location Map & Aerial
10 May 2, 2016 Item 16 Attachment C - Pre-Existing Condition Photos (January 2016)
Google Streetview, 1/2016
Google Streetview, 1/2016
11 May 2, 2016 Item 16 Attachment D - Existing Condition Photos (April 2016)
12 May 2, 2016 Item 16 Attachment E - Council Policy 110
CITY OF DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK DATE ADOPTED: 10/19/15 PRIVATE ENCROACHMENTS INTO CITY RIGHTS- 110 BY RESOLUTION: 2015-67 OF-WAY PAGES: 1 OF 2 POLICY
This policy memorializes the City Council’s position on which types of private encroachments are compatible with and enhance the public areas that City rights-of-way represent and, conversely, which types of encroachments are inappropriate because they would change the character and perception of a right-of-way area to one of being under private ownership and/or benefit rather than being a public space.
Appropriate Uses of City Rights-of-Way or Easements
There are numerous circumstances in Del Mar where an improved (paved) section of a City right-of-way is narrower that the width of the right-of-way itself. This results in an area of unimproved right-of-way adjacent to private property. In many cases, the owner of the adjacent property, or designee, proposes to install landscaping and other landscape-related improvements in the unimproved portion of the right-of-way. This has the beneficial effect of beautifying the area adjacent to the paved roadway, without the City having to bear the costs for installing or maintaining the improvements. These are generally considered to be an appropriate use of a right-of-way but still subject to review under the Encroachment Permit process.
There are also circumstances where an encroachment is proposed as a means to provide a driveway or entry path across the unimproved right-of-way between the paved section of the right-of-way and the adjacent private property. These too are deemed an appropriate and justifiable use of a City right-of-way or easement. Such proposals are generally approved, unless it is determined that the proposed encroachment would:
1. Present a public health or safety hazard, such as: a) Creating a trip hazard or other impediment to pedestrians b) Creating an unsafe line of sight for pedestrians or motorists 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); 2. Result in a loss of on-street public parking; 3. Be inconsistent with the City’s planned use for the area; 4. Result in a wholesale change in appearance or use of the area, to the detriment of the community; 5. Interfere with development or use on an adjacent public or private property; 6. Result in a permanent feature (e.g., stone wall or reinforced structure) that would be difficult to remove if the City exercises its right to modify the use of the area subject to the Encroachment Permit
13 May 2, 2016 Item 16 CITY OF DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK DATE ADOPTED: 10/19/15 PRIVATE ENCROACHMENTS INTO CITY RIGHTS- 110 BY RESOLUTION: 2015-67 OF-WAY PAGES: 2 OF 2 Inappropriate Proposals for Use of a Right-of-Way or Easement
It is the City’s policy that proposals for development encroachments that would result in an impression or appearance that the encroached upon area is owned by or reserved solely for the private use of the adjacent property will not be authorized unless the City Council makes a finding that the proposed encroachment will result in a public benefit to the community.
Examples of such inappropriate encroachments include: fences, hedges, or vegetation that would create the impression that the “walled-off” area is private vs. public property; and pools, spa or other amenities that would be used primarily for the benefit of the adjacent property, rather than for the public at large.
14 May 2, 2016 Item 16 Attachment F - Correspondence
15 May 2, 2016 Item 16 City of Del Mar Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Mark Delin, Assistant City Manager Via Scott W. Huth, City Manager
DATE: May 2, 2016
SUBJECT: Potential City of Del Mar One-Percent Sales Tax
REQUESTED ACTION:
Receive report, discuss, and provide direction as to whether the City should place a one-percent sales tax on the ballot.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City’s Finance Committee has recommended that the City place a one-percent sales tax on the ballot as part of the November 2016 election. Council is being asked to consider whether to proceed with the recommendation to pursue a one-percent sales tax measure, whether the tax should be a general revenue versus project-specific tax, if it should be limited to utility pole undergrounding or expanded to include other City projects and services; the duration of the tax; and the timing of this sales tax measure with respect to the possible Countywide sales tax measure being considered by SANDAG.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
On April 18, 2016, Council heard a presentation from the City’s Finance Committee which recommended that a one-percent sales tax be implemented to fund the undergrounding of powerlines within the City and potentially other projects. Staff was asked to return with additional information on the possible tax. The information below considers various aspects of the decision.
Sales Tax History and Projected Revenue
Sales tax is a substantial part of the City’s revenue. Del Mar typically generates a significant amount of sales tax due to its substantial visitor-supported services which include the Fairgrounds and many restaurants and shops. The following graphic shows the City’s sales tax revenue from Fiscal Year 2008 through projected receipts in Fiscal ______City Council Action:
1 May 2, 2016 Item 17 City Council Staff Report City One-Percent Sales Tax May 2, 2016 Page 2 of 6
Year 2016-2017. The revenues are the City’s one-percent share of the State of California sales tax, and are expected to exceed $2 million per year by Fiscal Year 2016-2017.
Sales tax is a fairly volatile source of revenue source since it is substantially dependent on the economy. Del Mar’s long-range financial forecast projects an annual growth rate for sales tax of only one percent because of this volatility.
If the City elects to impose a one-percent sales tax, the City could expect to receive $2 million per year in additional revenue based upon projected receipts of the current one- percent tax. Based on Del Mar’s tourism-based economy and the presence of the Del Mar Fairgrounds and Race Track, sales tax is predominately paid by visitors.
Tax Rate Caps
By State law, the combined rate of all district sales taxes imposed in any county is not permitted to exceed two percent (visit https://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/newloctax.htm#5). In Del Mar, the applicable taxes that fall within the “district tax” category include the existing SANDAG half-percent tax, and if approved by the voters in November, the new half-percent tax which may be placed on the ballot by SANDAG. The amount within the cap available to Del Mar is therefore one percent if the new SANDAG ballot passes, and could be 1.5 percent if the SANDAG ballot does not pass. Current district taxes imposed by other jurisdictions in the County of San Diego on top of the 8.00 percent current tax rate are: City of El Cajon, 0.50 percent; City of La Mesa, 0.75 percent; City of National City, 1.00 percent; and the City of Vista, 0.50 percent. Chula Vista is also considering the possibility of including a half-cent sales tax on the ballot in November.
2 May 2, 2016 Item 17 City Council Staff Report City One-Percent Sales Tax May 2, 2016 Page 3 of 6
Voter Passage Rate for Adoption
The majority voter requirements for the different types of sales taxes are contained in the following table, which can be accessed at the Board of Equalization link indicated above.
California Tax Purpose Adoption Rules Legislation
2/3 vote of City Council and majority General Purpose tax 7285.9 of voters
Specific Purpose tax (expenditure 2/3 vote of City Council and 2/3 7285.91 plan required) majority of voters
If the proposed sales tax measure is limited to funding only City undergrounding projects, that would be considered “specific purpose,” and passage by a 2/3 majority of voters would apply. If the sales tax is considered to be a “general purpose tax” in that it would be used for a variety of projects, such a sales tax would only need to be approved by a simple majority of voters (50%, plus one).
Potential Projects
There are a variety of unfunded projects in the City which would benefit from the increase in revenue that a one-percent sales tax would generate. The proposed one- percent sales tax, at a projected $2 million in annual new General Fund revenue, would make it possible to work on a variety of projects which are not currently funded. Examples include:
• Utility Undergrounding – The City’s utility undergrounding consultant has not released a final cost estimate for the total project, but has indicated as an initial estimate, that the total remaining project could be approximately $36 million. If this project is selected by Council, certain issues must be addressed, such as whether public funds can pay for undergrounding laterals on private property, and equity issues with respect to residents who have already paid substantial sums to underground certain segments of utility lines.
• Shores Park Master Plan Implementation – The Shores Park Master Plan has not yet been completed, but it is expected to include capital improvements for new recreational amenities at the park.
3 May 2, 2016 Item 17 City Council Staff Report City One-Percent Sales Tax May 2, 2016 Page 4 of 6
• Camino del Mar Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvements – Improving pedestrian access through better sidewalks, crosswalks, curbs and gutters, and increasing the attractiveness of downtown and other areas through improved landscaping and lighting.
• Expand public walkways, trails, view vistas, parkland and open space - Install safe beach bluff “Coastal Rail Trail;’ finish ocean to Crest Canyon trail; purchase land for open spaces/parks. Improve other city trails, cleanup and enhance City landscape.
• Expand recreational services - Improve or add tennis, pickleball and basketball courts, and senior programs
• Replace older city public buildings such as the fire station, public works yard. Add restroom/lifeguard tower at North Beach.
In summary, this sales tax measure, if approved, would provide the City with the ability to accomplish many of the goals identified in the Community Plan.
Typical California Sales Tax Rates
According to the State’s Legislative Analyst Office, the average California sales tax rate is 8.5 percent, and two-thirds of Californians live within cities of counties with 8 or 9 percent sales tax rates. (See http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/sales- tax/understanding-sales-tax-050615.pdf for additional information). A proposed sales tax of one percent would still keep Del Mar within this range, even if the SANDAG sales tax issue passes. Attachment A contains information from California City Finance regarding the relative success rates of recent sales tax measures.
Timing
There are certain key dates which must be met to include the proposed measure on the November 2016 ballot.
• June 6th – City Council preparation of resolutions for measure
• June 20th – Council adopts resolutions for measure
• July 5th – Publish notices of measure
• August 1st – Last Council meeting to determine whether to withdraw measure
• August 17th – Last day to withdraw measure
4 May 2, 2016 Item 17 City Council Staff Report City One-Percent Sales Tax May 2, 2016 Page 5 of 6
• August 22nd- Impartial Analysis due to Registrar of Voters (ROV)
• August 24th – Arguments due to ROV
• August 25th – August 31st - ROV trades arguments with each side for rebuttals, and prepare rebuttals
• September 1st – Rebuttals due to ROV
Public Outreach Process
Chair of the Finance Committee Tom McGreal made a presentation to the Business Support Advisory Committee (BSAC) at its meeting on Tuesday, April 26, 2016 regarding the potential sales tax measure. Though there was no formal motion made by the BSAC, generally the Committee expressed concerns about a sales tax measure because of the potential impact on their overall cost of doing business. Points made by the BSAC members included recommending that the City explore other revenue alternatives to fund a utility underground project; further gauging from the community whether utility undergrounding is a top priority for such a measure; exploring the idea to fund only a portion of the utility underground project using a sales tax measure; and that the City seek input from the broader business community and the Del Mar Village Association.
Additionally, staff would like direction from Council on the vision for any type of public outreach process associated with a potential sales tax measure, whether to ascertain community interest and support for such a measure and/or what types of projects the community would prioritize for funding through revenue from an additional sales tax.
Council Decision Points
The City Council is requested to provide direction to staff as to whether to proceed with placing the sales tax measure on the November 2016 ballot. If so, the following information is requested:
1. General revenue (simple majority) or special purpose (2/3rds majority) sales tax?
2. If special purpose, what project? If general purpose, identify projects to be included for funding on the ballot language.
3. Timing – Should the proposed sales tax initiative be pursued for inclusion as part of the November 2016 election? Note that as a jurisdiction of less than 5,000 in population, Del Mar may also conduct a mail-in ballot.
5 May 2, 2016 Item 17 City Council Staff Report City One-Percent Sales Tax May 2, 2016 Page 6 of 6
4. Is a one-percent sales tax the correct rate? A half-percent measure could generate $1,000,000 per year.
5. Should a public outreach program be conducted on the proposed sales tax?
6. Should a public outreach program be conducted to prioritize projects to be funded by the tax?
FISCAL IMPACT:
Pursuit of a sales tax measure, such as proposed, is not included in the City Council revised Goals and Priorities work plan for March through September 2016 (approved by the Council on March 7, 2016). Preparation of a ballot measure would require significant staff resources, as well as the services of the City’s legal counsel. Associated work items would include efforts such as preparation of ballot measure language, potentially the identification of projects to funded by the sales tax (if it is a special purpose tax), coordination with the Registrar of Voters on all associated logistical requirements, responding to media and public inquiries about the measure. The utility undergrounding study (preparing and issuing the request for proposals for the study and reviewing the study report) is included in the current work plan, estimated to require 30 hours of staff time, which has already been expended. It is also important to note City resources (including staff time and materials) cannot be used to advocate for a sales tax ballot measure.
Additionally the direct cost of a City of Del Mar sales tax measure, as estimated by the Registrar of Voters, is estimated to run $8,000 to $15,000. If the sales tax measure passes, there are certain unknown charges which will be applied by the Board of Equalization (BOE) to cover its direct and indirect costs. These one-time costs are capped by statute at $175,000. An annual administrative fee will also be assessed by the BOE. Revenues from a one-percent sales tax should be approximately $2 million per year based upon current projections. The sales tax would be implemented the first day of the calendar quarter more than 110 days after adoption of the ordinance by the voters (meaning April 1, 2017 based on the November 2016 election.)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
This item is not subject to CEQA review.
Attachment A – Local Revenue Measure Results – November 2015
6 May 2, 2016 Item 17 Attachment A
November 4, 2015 Preliminary CaliforniaCityFinance.Com pending final tallies by county clerks Local Revenue Measure Results November 2015
Elections for local government offices and measures were held in many counties in California on Tuesday November 3. Because there are no statewide offices or measures scheduled in odd years, counties without contested offices or measures did not conduct an election. There were 67 local measures scattered among 17 of California’s 58 counties. Among these measures were 40 concerning local taxes or bonds. San Francisco’s Proposition A, a $310 million affordable housing bond measure was the largest of three general obligation bond measures. There were 14 parcel taxes including five in special districts, four city proposals and five to extend school parcel taxes. Parcel taxes and non-school general obligation bonds require two-thirds voter approval. Nine school bond measures were considered for a total of $1.18 billion in proposed local school facility financing. All required 55% approval. There were 14 general purpose majority approval city measures concerned majority vote general purpose taxes, six of which extended existing taxes with no increase.
Types of Local Tax Measures November 2015
City / County G.O. School Bond, Bond, 9 3 School Parcel Tax, 55% UtilityUsers 5 Vote 2/3 Tax, 2 Vote Majority Hotel Tax, Vote 3 Parcel Tax, 9 Sales Tax, 9
© 2015 Michael Coleman
2217 Isle Royale Lane • Davis, CA • 95616-6616 Phone: 530.758.3952 • Fax: 530.758.3952
7 May 2, 2016 Item 17 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2015 – 2 – Preliminary November 4, 2015 Overall Passage Rates Based on election night counts with 100% of all precincts reporting, 29 measures passed.
Local Revenue Measures November 2015 Total Pass Passing% % of Total City General Tax (Majority Vote) 14 12 86% 35.0% City SpecialTax orG.O.bond (2/3 Vote) 7 3 43% 17.5% Special District (2/3) 5 2 40% 12.5% School ParcelTax2/3 5 4 80% 12.5% School Bond 55% 9 8 89% 22.5% Total 40 29 73% 100.0%
The proportion of passing school measures is better than historic passage rates. Preliminary tallies indicate all but one of the nine bonds passed and all but one of the five parcel tax extensions passed. School Tax & Bond Measures November 2015
89% (8/9) 55% Vote Since 2001 81% Bond
2/3 Vote 80% (4/5) Since 2001 60% Tax / bond
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent Passing
Twelve of the fourteen non-school majority vote general tax measures passed. Five of the twelve two- thirds vote special taxes and bonds passed. City / County / Special District Tax & Bond Measures November 2015
General Tax Majority Vote Since 2001 66% 86% (12/14) Measures
42% (5/12) Special Tax 2/3 Voter Measures Since 2001 47%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent Passing
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
8 May 2, 2016 Item 17 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2015 – 3 – Preliminary November 4, 2015
Measure Outcome by Category Among non-school local measures, there were nine majority vote add-on sales tax (transactions and use tax) and nine parcel taxes, the only tax increase option for most special districts.
Passing and Failing City / County / Special District Measures by Type November 2015
© 2015 Michael Coleman
Local Add-On Sales Taxes (Transaction and Use Taxes) Seven of the nine add-on sales tax measures passed. Four of the seven successful measures extended existing taxes, but voters in Dunsmuir, South San Francisco and Greenfield adopted increases. Delano voters turned back an extension of their 1 percent tax and Modesto’s ½ percent Measure G also failed.
Transactions and Use Tax (Add-on Sales Tax) - General Tax - Majority Approval Agency Name County Rate YES% NO% Hercules Contra Costa Measure B 1/2 cent 74.7% 25.3% PASS extend Novato Marin Measure C from 1/2centto1/4cent 72.9% 27.1% PASS extend San Mateo San Mateo Measure S 1/4cent 70.0% 30.0% PASS extend Greenfield Monterey Measure V 1cent 67.8% 32.2% PASS extend Dunsmuir Siskiyou Measure P 1/2cent 63.4% 36.7% PASS increas e South San Francisco San Mateo Measure W 1/2cent 61.5% 38.5% PASS increas e Greenfield Monterey Measure W 3/4cent 59.5% 40.6% PASS increas e Delano Kern Measure A 1cent 44.6% 55.4% FAIL extend Modesto Stanislaus Measure G 1/2cent 43.7% 56.3% FAIL increas e
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
9 May 2, 2016 Item 17 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2015 – 4 – Preliminary November 4, 2015
The following chart shows the add-on sales tax measures from this election, their tax rates and percent “yes” votes.
Add-On Sales Taxes (Transactions and Use Tax) Measures - November 2015
Transient Occupancy (Hotel) Taxes There were three measures to increase or expand Transient Occupancy (Hotel) Taxes, all majority vote general purpose. All passed. Transient Occupancy Tax Tax Measures: All General Majority Vote Agency NameCounty Rate YES% NO% Hermosa Beach Los Angeles Measure H from 10%to12% 84.8% 15.2% PASS increase Ferndale Humboldt Measure C from 8%to10% 76.0% 24.0% PASS increase Ceres Stanislaus Measure E from5%to10% 56.6% 43.4% PASS increase
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
10 May 2, 2016 Item 17 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2015 – 5 – Preliminary November 4, 2015
Utility User Taxes Voters in Hercules approved an extension of their 8% general purpose utility user tax. In San Marino, voters passed a measure to modernize the telecommunications UUT to extend it to wireless services while reducing the rate. Utility User Taxes - General Tax - Majority Approval Agency NameCounty Rate YES% NO% Hercules Contra Costa Measure C 8% 72.5% 27.5% PASS extend San Marino Los Angeles Measure U from 6%to5% 77.0% 23.0% PASS Expand&reduce
Parcel Taxes and Special Taxes (non-school) There were nine parcel taxes for cities and special districts. Four passed. City, County and Special District Parcel Taxes - Two-Thirds Approval Agency Name County Amount YES% NO% San Marino Los Angeles Measure SA various 77.7% 22.4% PASS extend South Pasadena Los Angeles Measure L various 76.5% 23.5% PASS extend, increase Marinwood Community Services District Marin Measure I from $190/parcel 73.7% 26.3% PASS increase Stallion Springs Kern Measure B $50/parcel 68.2% 31.8% PASS increase Cosumnes River Community Services District El Dorado Measure D from $100to$250 62.9% 37.1% FAIL increase Acrata Fire Protection District Humboldt Measure A $24/unit 44.6% 55.4% FAIL increase Running Springs Water District San Bernardino Measure B in 2016, to $125 43.8% 56.3% FAIL increase Claremont Los Angeles Measure PS $286/parcel 26.9% 73.1% FAIL increase Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino Measure A $44.5/unit- 22.5% 77.5% FAIL extend
General Obligation Bonds Voters approved San Francisco’s $310 billion affordable housing bond measure. The measure will “finance the construction, development, acquisition, and preservation of housing affordable to low and middle-income households through programs that will prioritize vulnerable populations such as San Francisco’s working families, veterans, seniors, disabled persons; …assist in the acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable rental apartment buildings to prevent the eviction of long- term residents; …repair and reconstruct dilapidated public housing; … fund a middle-income rental program; and … provide for homeownership down payment assistance opportunities for educators and middle-income households.” Measures for community city recreation centers in San Carlos and Los Altos were rejected soundly.
City, County and Special District Bond Measures - Two-Thirds Approval Agency Name County Amount YES% NO% San Francisco San Francisco Measure A $310m 73.5% 26.5% PASS San Carlos San Mateo Measure V $45m 38.3% 61.7% FAIL Los Altos Santa Clara Measure A $65m 28.1% 71.9% FAIL
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
11 May 2, 2016 Item 17 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2015 – 6 – Preliminary November 4, 2015
School Parcel Taxes All five school parcel tax measures were to extend existing taxes at current rates. All passed except the lowest one, Wilmar Union School District’s $50 per parcel tax. School Parcel Taxes - Two-Thirds Approval Agency Name County Rate YES% NO% Las Virgenes Unified School District Ventura Measure E $98/parcel 81.8% 18.2% PASS extend Union Elementary School District Santa Clara Measure B $96/parcel 74.5% 25.5% PASS extend Las Virgenes Unified School District Los Angeles Measure E $98/parcel 72.2% 27.8% PASS extend Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District Sonoma Measure B $89/parcel 68.2% 31.8% PASS extend Wilmar Union School District Sonoma Measure C $50/parcel 61.9% 38.1% FAIL extend
School Bonds There were nine school bond measures on the ballot for a total of over $1.18 billion in bonds. All appear to have passed except Walnut Valley School District’s $208 million Measure O. Preliminary counts have Placerville Union School District’s Measure B was passing by one vote of 2,408 votes cast. Assuming that result holds, voters approved a total of $972 million in new local school bonds.
School Bond Measures - 55% approval Agency Name County Amount YES% NO% Heber Elementary school District Imperial Measure J $6.0m 78.5% 21.5% PASS Potter Valley Community Unified School District Mendocino Measure T $3.1m 68.5% 31.5% PASS San Rafael City High School District Marin Measure B $160.5m 67.1% 32.9% PASS San Rafael City Elementary School District Marin Measure A $108.225m 66.3% 33.7% PASS Redwood City Elementary School District San Mateo Measure T $193.0m 62.5% 37.5% PASS San Mateo-Foster City Elementary School District San Mateo Measure X $148.0m 57.5% 42.5% PASS Compton Unified School District Los Angeles Measure S $350.0m 55.8% 44.2% PASS Placerville Union School District El Dorado Measure B $3.2m 55.0% 45.0% PASS CLOSE Walnut Valley Unified School District Los Angeles Measure O $208.0m 53.1% 46.9% FAIL
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
12 May 2, 2016 Item 17 Local Revenue Measure Results November 2015 – 7 – Preliminary November 4, 2015 Some Historical Context The number of off year measures has steadily declined over the last decade, suggesting a preference for even-year gubernatorial and presidential elections that have higher turnouts. Meanwhile, the proportion of successful measures in these off-year elections appears to have improved. California Local Tax and Bond Measures
100 November Odd-Year Elections Pass Fail 90 80 33 70 60 50 22 22 12 40 14 11 30 14 62 20 40 41 36 34 29 10 22 0 Nov2003 Nov2005 Nov2007 Nov2009 Nov2011 Nov2013 Nov2015 ©2015 Michael Coleman
Local Revenue Measures in California Passed/Proposed November - Odd Year Consolidated Local Elections Nov2003 Nov2005 Nov2007 Nov2009 Nov2011 Nov2013 Nov2015 City General Tax (Majority Vote) 2/2 17/23 18/24 23/36 19/22 17/20 12/14 County General Tax (Majority Vote) / 1/1 / / / / / Special Dist. Majority Fee / 1/1 / //// City SpecialTax,GObond (2/3 Vote) 2/6 3/12 4/6 3/6 4/7 2/5 3/6 County SpecialTax, GObond (2/3 Vote) 1/2 0/1 2/2 / 1/2 / 1 Special District (2/3) 1/2 4/16 4/13 1/2 6/7 4/9 2/5 School ParcelTax2/3 5/11 4/4 5/6 7/11 5/7 5/6 4/5 School Bond 2/3 2/4 1/3 0/2 0/1 / / / School Bond 55% 9/9 31/34 7/9 2/2 6/8 6/8 8/9 Total 22/36 62/95 40/62 36/58 41/53 34/48 29/40
©2015 Michael Coleman ************ For more information: Michael Coleman 530-758-3952. [email protected]
Source: County elections offices. mc
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
13 May 2, 2016 Item 17 City of Del Mar
Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Eric Minicilli, Public Works Director Via Scott W. Huth, City Manager
DATE: May 2, 2016
SUBJECT: Sidewalk, Street, and Drainage Project Update
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests that the City Council receive the Sidewalk, Street, and Drainage Project update and direct staff on design elements for various project segments.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
The City has an approved plan to construct sidewalks, curb and gutters, storm drain infrastructure and roadway repairs on Camino del Mar, Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Via de la Valle. On June 16, 2014, the City Council directed staff to expand the scope of the design for the Sidewalk, Street, and Drainage Project to include the San Dieguito Intersection Traffic Control Improvements Project. The nine segments are listed in the following table with current project status and most recent estimates included:
Segment Sidewalk, Street, and Drainage Project Segments Project Status Cost Design for Segments #1 through #9 60% complete $815,000 Estimated Construction Cost $600,000 Segment #1: Camino del Mar – 15th to 9th Design (30% complete) - $1,600,000 Segment #2: Jimmy Durante Boulevard – South Construction Complete 5/30/2015 $1,250,000 Segment #3: Camino del Mar – Beach Colony Construction Complete 5/30/2014 $600,000 Segment #4: Camino del Mar – 9th to 4th Design (30% complete) $300,000 Segment #5: Camino del Mar – 4th to Carmel Valley Design (30% complete) $430,000 Segment #6: Via de la Valle Construction Complete 5/30/2016 $1,360,000 Segment #7: Jimmy Durante Boulevard – North Design (30% complete) $950,000
______City Council Action:
1 May 2, 2016 Item 18 City Council Staff Report Sidewalk, Street, and Drainage Project Update May 2, 2016 Page 2 of 4
Segment #8: Camino del Mar – North Beach Construction Complete 5/30/2016 $670,000 Segment #9: San Dieguito Drive Intersection Design (90% complete) $350,000 Improvements
Segment 1: Camino del Mar – 15th to 9th: This segment was originally scoped to only include streetscape and sidewalk connectivity improvements at the intersections of Camino del Mar between 10th to 12th Street. City Council has since directed staff to expand the scope to include review of the area on Camino del Mar between 9th and 15th Street, including the streetscape improvements next to the City Hall site. Staff is currently assigning a construction cost estimate of $600,000 for the sidewalk connectivity improvements between 10th and 12th Street and the streetscape improvements adjacent to the City Hall site until further determinations are made. Staff was also directed to review the City’s approved streetscape plan, provide analysis on the potential for expanding the use of curb, gutter, and sidewalk within the project area by incorporating traffic calming elements, examine the use of a shared bike lane/vehicular lane, median widening, and investigate the addition of angled parking for the purpose of returning to the City Council for further discussion. On May 2, 2016, a separate Camino del Mar Streetscape Plan Update staff report will be presented to Council for discussion.
Segment 2: Jimmy Durante Boulevard – South (San Dieguito Drive to Plaza): Substantial completion of the streetscape improvements on Jimmy Durante Boulevard from San Dieguito Drive to Plaza was achieved in May 2015.
Segment 3: Camino del Mar – Beach Colony: Substantial completion of the streetscape improvements on Camino del Mar from Coast Boulevard to the San Dieguito River was achieved in May 2014.
Segment 5: Camino del Mar (4th to Carmel Valley): During the course of the ongoing Anderson Canyon Emergency Project, staff recognized that the temporary traffic control measures currently in place that result in the removal of one of the two northbound vehicular travel lanes between Carmel Valley Road and 4th Street has not appeared to have adverse impacts to traffic circulation. Staff has directed the design team for the Sidewalk, Street, and Drainage Project to halt design efforts on Segments 4 & 5 to allow time for a discussion regarding permanent modifications to travel lane configurations on these sections of Camino del Mar.
The original design concept of this segment of Camino del Mar called for the installation of a 5’ wide sidewalk along the western edge of Camino del Mar from 4th Street to the south side of Anderson Canyon. The sidewalk would then transition to a meandering decomposed granite path through the preserve area until it reached Carmel Valley Road. There were no traffic lane configuration changes anticipated besides bike lane widening, buffer additions, and narrowing of vehicular traffic lanes typical of the City’s previous Sidewalk, Street, and Drainage Projects. Staff presented a new design
2 May 2, 2016 Item 18 City Council Staff Report Sidewalk, Street, and Drainage Project Update May 2, 2016 Page 3 of 4 concept that examined the permanent removal of one of the two northbound vehicular lanes at the April 18th Traffic and Parking Advisory Committee (TPAC) meeting for discussion. The design modifies the intersection of Carmel Valley Road and Camino del Mar to eliminate the existing free right turn lane for vehicles approaching Camino del Mar from westbound Carmel Valley Road, thereby alleviating one area of conflict that currently exists for northbound bicyclists. The design would also add new parking spaces and a new multi-purpose pathway on the west side of Camino del Mar. TPAC recommended approval of the new design concept with a recommendation that the City also investigate the possibility of including a double left turn lane from Camino del Mar southbound to Del Mar Heights Road eastbound.
Segment 4: Camino del Mar (9th to 4th): The original design concept called for the installation of a 5’ wide sidewalk along the eastern edge of Camino del Mar from 9th Street to 4th Street. TPAC also recommended Council consider modifying the design concept for this segment to remove one of two northbound vehicular travel lanes in conjunction with the changes made on Segment 5.
Segment 6: Via de la Valle: Substantial completion of the streetscape improvements on Via de la Valle will be achieved in May 2016.
Segment 8: Camino del Mar – North Beach: Substantial completion of the streetscape improvements on Camino del Mar from Via de la Valle to the San Dieguito River will be achieved in May 2016.
Segment 9: San Dieguito Drive Intersection Traffic Control Improvements: On March 21, 2016, Council authorized staff to complete the design and construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Jimmy Durante Boulevard and San Dieguito Drive. Staff anticipates completing the design in the summer with construction scheduled to begin after Labor Day. The inclusion of permanent low level signage in the middle of the roundabout is an item that warrants further discussion. One concept to consider would be installation of a Del Mar Village entry sign monument similar to the entry signage currently in place on the northern and southern ends of Camino del Mar.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The following tables detail the funding sources and estimated costs to date for the Sidewalk, Street, and Drainage Project.
Project Funding Sources 2014 Bond Issuance (TransNet Financed) $3,500,000 Active Transportation Program Grant $810,000 General Fund $385,000 Total $4,695,000
3 May 2, 2016 Item 18 City Council Staff Report Sidewalk, Street, and Drainage Project Update May 2, 2016 Page 4 of 4
Estimated Project Costs Expended or Committed to Date Segment #1 through #9 – Design $815,000 Segment #2: Jimmy Durante Boulevard – South $1,250,000 Segment #3: Camino del Mar – Beach Colony $600,000 Segment #6: Via de la Valle $1,360,000 Segment #8: Camino del Mar – North Beach $670,000 Total $4,695,000
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Inclusion of projects within the City’s Capital Improvement Program does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and is exempt under General Rule, Section 1506(b)(3). Each individual project will be separately evaluated for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL REVIEW: Updates for Sidewalk, Street, and Drainage Projects were reviewed by the City Council on October 6, 2014.
4 May 2, 2016 Item 18 City of Del Mar
Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Jon S. Terwilliger, Senior Management Analyst Via Scott W. Huth, City Manager
DATE: May 2, 2016
SUBJECT: 1996 Camino del Mar Streetscape Plan Update Process
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests that the City Council receive the report from the project architects for the 1996 Camino del Mar Streetscape Plan Update, and direct staff and the architectural team on future direction for the update and associated public outreach process.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Over the past two years, the City has been systematically working to complete sidewalk, street, and drainage improvement projects in different areas of the community, with the overall goal of improving pedestrian and bicycle mobility, addressing drainage concerns, and rehabilitating roadway pavement. The first two completed segments included the Beach Colony segment of Camino del Mar, followed by Camino del Mar/Jimmy Durante Boulevard, from just north of the Del Mar Plaza to just south of San Dieguito Drive. Segments currently under construction include Camino del Mar from the San Dieguito River bridge north to Via de la Valle, and Via de la Valle from Camino del Mar to Jimmy Durante Boulevard. Construction of these segments is scheduled for completion by June 2016. Future unfunded segments of the sidewalk, streets, and drainage project include Jimmy Durante Boulevard from San Dieguito Drive to Via de la Valle, the downtown Camino del Mar corridor from 15th Street to 9th Street, and Camino del Mar from 9th Street south to Carmel Valley Road.
Pending redevelopment of the 1050 Camino del Mar site for new City Hall/Town Hall facilities provides a timely opportunity to construct the adjacent downtown corridor segment in conjunction. Further, the FY 2015-16 City Council Goals & Priorities provide direction to update the 1996 Camino del Mar Streetscape Plan. The 1996 Plan established a solid foundation for what the Downtown Streetscape project could incorporate; however, in order to complete actual design and construction drawings for a capital improvement project, more specificity is required. Types of improvements envisioned as part of the Downtown Streetscape project include improvements for ______City Council Action:
1 May 2, 2016 Item 19 City Council Staff Report Camino del Mar Streetscape Plan Update May 2, 2016 Page 2 of 3
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, sidewalks, crosswalks, drainage (curb and gutter), and intersection improvements. Examples of other areas to look at include pedestrian-scale lighting, bicycle lanes, parking, locations for pedestrian- oriented seating and gathering spaces, and possible locations for public art.
Beginning on February 9, 2016, City staff and the Spurlock Landscape Architects team conducted a series of meetings with representatives from the Traffic & Parking Advisory Committee (TPAC), the Business Support Advisory Committee (BSAC), and the Del Mar Village Association (DMVA) to elicit feedback on the Plan, with the specific goal to update and make the Plan implementable. The architects were able to glean wide- ranging feedback from the participants, which enabled them to start conceptualizing the components of the Plan update.
Comments and responses from these meetings are described in Attachment A, and have yielded four (4) street alignment concepts and design palettes for the downtown Camino del Mar corridor from 9th Street to 15th Street (Attachment B). • [Existing Conditions: 4’-17’ medians, 8’-11’ turn lanes, two 12’ vehicular lanes, 5’-6’ bike lane, diagonal & parallel parking, 5’-15’ pedestrian realms] • Concept 1 (Sharrow): 10’ median, 8’ turn lane, 10’ vehicular lane, 13’ bike/vehicle sharrow lane, diagonal & parallel parking, 8’-20’ pedestrian realms • Concept 2 (Bike Lane): 10’ median, 8’ turn lane, two 10’ vehicular lanes, 5’ bike lane, diagonal & parallel parking, 8’-17’ pedestrian realms • Concept 3 (Parallel Parking): 7’-9’ median, 8’ turn lane, two 10’ vehicular lanes, 5’ bike lane, parallel parking, 19’-33’ pedestrian realms • Concept 4 (Hybrid): 10’ median, 8’ turn lane, two 10’ vehicular lanes, 5’ bike lane, diagonal & parallel parking, 8’-30’ pedestrian realms
The purpose of this item is not to state design preferences or weigh in on the Streetscape concepts, but rather to receive an update on progress to date, and confirm next steps. If the City Council concurs, staff will continue the Plan update process with the following timeline/milestones: • Public workshop & meetings with adjacent commercial property owners (Summer 2016) • TPAC, BSAC, DMVA check-in (Summer 2016) • City Council reviews recommended Plan updates and 30% architectural design drawings (Summer/Fall 2016) • City Engineer develops 100% design drawings (Fall 2016) • City Council evaluates whether it would like to pursue a Spring 2017 Streetscape Capital Improvement Project (Fall/Winter 2016)
Staff is requesting that the City Council, as the client for the design, either (1) direct staff and the architects to move forward with the Plan update process as presented, or (2) direct staff and the architects to modify the Plan update process as City Council desires. If the City Council concurs with the update process as proposed, the project will
2 May 2, 2016 Item 19 City Council Staff Report Camino del Mar Streetscape Plan Update May 2, 2016 Page 3 of 3 proceed into its next step of a public workshop to elicit additional feedback from a broader community audience.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Camino del Mar Streetscape Plan Update efforts are funded in the adopted Fiscal Year 2015-16 and 2016-17 Operating and Capital Budget. After the Plan update has been completed, and should the City Council elect to implement the Plan through a future capital improvement project, there would be additional fiscal impact that would be considered as a separate item at that time.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
At this time, a project has not been defined; therefore an environmental impact analysis cannot be determined. The appropriate analysis and action will be taken in conformance with the regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) once a project has been defined by the City Council.
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
On July 20, 2015, the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Spurlock Landscape Architects to complete the public outreach process, narrative, and 30% design drawings associated with an update to the 1996 Camino del Mar Streetscape Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Summary of Feedback from Meetings (2/9/2016, 3/16/2016, 4/12/2016)
3 May 2, 2016 Item 19 ATTACHMENT A
SPURLOCK
MEETINGS SUMMARY
DATE April 22, 2016
ATTENDEES Jon Terwilliger, City of Del Mar Robin Crabtree, TPAC Jen Grove, DMVA Bob Scott, DMVA Tracy Martinez, TPAC Greg Glassman, TPAC/BSAC Zach Groban, BSAC KC Vafiadis, BSAC/DMVA Andy Spurlock, Spurlock Brad Lents, Spurlock Mikaela Pearson, Spurlock
PROJECT Camino Del Mar Streetscape PROJECT NO. CDM-161
DISCUSSION ITEM
1. Project Scope o The site area has been strategically selected to encompass the most populated area of downtown, but also aligns with two parallel projects that can tie into the improved streetscape. Those two projects are the City Hall and the Parking Management Plan. o Project site extends from 9th Street to 15th Street o The area from 9th Street to 13th Street will require the most attention o A unified vision and pedestrian continuity are the real priority o Parking planning will occur in conjunction with TPAC, which is currently working reviewing changes to DMMC o The group fears that any streetscape layout that required the cooperation of adjacent private property owners would be a non- starter.
2. Traffic o Complete, safe streets are a priority, and pedestrian space should be prioritized over parking and vehicular space. o The inclusion of additional types of parking such as motorcycle, scooter and compact parking is good o Sharrow lanes are utilized on many other parts of the coast (e.g. Solana Beach, Encinitas, Carlsbad) where there are (4) lanes of traffic, and in terms of continuity may be the best option here as well. o The team will engage the Bike Alliance for preferences, safety and
2122 Hancock Street San Diego, California 92110
619.681.0090 sp-land.com
License No. 1865
4 May 2, 2016 Item 19 ATTACHMENT A
MEETING NOTES
Meeting Summary | CDM-161 | Camino Del Mar Streetscape April 22, 2016 Page 2 of 3
other considerations. This will help establish continuity along the coast o If sharrow lanes are employed, left turn lanes at uncontrolled crossings may need to remain in place for improved traffic flow. The team will hold on any decisions until synopsis of the related traffic study is complete o Traffic calming is a priority (to slow traffic and create safer pedestrian crossings). Possible methods include: rumble strips, raised intersections, road thinning, bulbouts, wider medians, etc. o Utilizing the minimum lane width was seen as beneficial in terms of pedestrian safety, better sidewalk widths and traffic slowing. o Group did not emphasize the need for more parking, and were open to exploring less parking if it would benefit the pedestrian realm.
3. Pedestrian Continuity and Safety o Limit median planting to 3’ for visibility and ease of maintenance. Trees are desirable as long as they are low maintenance and do not block too much view o Pedestrian realm is inconsistent in terms of width, trajectory, materiality, grade and relationship to parking. Consistency is seen as very important especially in terms of creating a continuous pedestrian path. o Pedestrian level lighting is seen as important for pedestrian visibility and safety o A wider median for tree planting may provide a pedestrian refuge when crossing the street, but bulb-outs are considered more effective in terms of safety and visibility o Uncontrolled (but marked and lit) pedestrian crossings are a good way to connect the pedestrian realm without heavily impacting traffic
4. Aesthetic Improvements
o Site elements to be considered during the implementation stage: signage, site furnishings, lighting (pedestrian scale, possibly return to a fixture similar to the historic fixture), entrance signage, crosswalks, trash and recycle receptacles, and water fountains o Materials have been selected and partially implemented that would be good to carry through. For example: trash receptacles (powder coated green), paving surface (concrete with exposed aggregate), bike racks, and signage (green). Established motif is the Torrey Pine branch. o The road will be only asphalt to differentiate from the pedestrian realm o Designating places for art will be important for the implementation phase
5 May 2, 2016 Item 19 ATTACHMENT A
MEETING NOTES
Meeting Summary | CDM-161 | Camino Del Mar Streetscape April 22, 2016 Page 3 of 3
o Underutilized spaces require low maintenance and useful solutions. o Existing bus stops can be enhanced to match neighborhood character and highlight their location. Locations should be rethought to accommodate use (for example adjacent to the library)
PREPARED BY Mikaela Pearson of Spurlock Poirier Landscape Architects
COPIES Correspondence Active Project Electronic Correspondence
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS LISTED PLEASE NOTIFY OUR OFFICE IMMEDIATELY
6 May 2, 2016 Item 19 City of Del Mar Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Mark Delin, Assistant City Manager Via Scott W. Huth, City Manager
DATE: May 2, 2016
SUBJECT: Notification of Solid Waste Collection Rate and Tipping Fee Increases for Fiscal Year 2016-2017
REQUESTED ACTION:
Receive the report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Under the terms of the solid waste collection franchise agreement with Coast Waste Management (CWM), CWM is entitled to annually adjust its fees by 80 percent of the annual change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), and to pass through any increases at the Regional Solid Waste Association (RSWA) disposal facility, which is required to be used under the terms of the RSWA and solid waste franchise agreements. Both adjustments are automatic under the Franchise Agreement and the RSWA agreements previously approved by Council.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
CWM submitted its request for the annual CPI adjustment for its residential, commercial, multifamily and roll-off fees in accordance with the Solid Waste Franchise Agreement to be effective July 1, 2016 (Attachment A). The franchise agreement uses the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County CPI for all urban consumers as prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The franchise agreement limits this increase to 80 percent of the reported change in the CPI for the prior calendar year. The calendar year CPI for 2015 was an increase of 0.99 percent, so the allowed increase to rates is 0.99 x 80 percent, or 0.73 percent. The letter notes the need for a new commercial organics collection rate to meet the requirements of AB 1826 Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling; however, staff is not proposing to submit a rate at this time, as no Del Mar businesses currently fall within the mandatory collection threshold.
______City Council Action:
1 May 2, 2016 Item 20 City Council Staff Report Solid Waste Collection CPI Update May 2, 2016 Page 2 of 2
The franchise agreement also permits the pass through of landfill tipping fee increases for the RSWA facility. The RSWA tipping fee will increase from $46.28 per ton to $47.15 per ton effective July 1, 2016, an increase of 1.88 percent. Although this CPI calculation also uses the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County metropolitan service area, it uses a December-December change rather than the annual average change, so it produces a slightly different value.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Examples of rate increases of some of the more common types of services are contained in the table below.
Residential 35 gallon 64-gallon 96-gallon Old $15.45 $19.57 $21.74 New $15.60 $19.76 $21.94 Increase $ 0.15 $ 0.19 $ 0.20
Commercial 3-yard bin 1 time/week 3-yard bin 2 times/week 3-yard bin 3 times/week Old $118.38 $223.90 $322.35 New $119.66 $226.35 $325.93 Increase $ 1.28 $ 2.45 $ 3.58
Recycling 3-yard 3-yard bin 1 time/week 3-yard bin 2 times/week 3-yard bin 3 times/week Old $37.69 $68.38 $99.04 New $37.96 $67.87 $99.75 Increase $ 0.27 $ 0.49 $ 0.71
The City receives about $100,000 per year in franchise fees and certain other revenues under the terms of this agreement. The City’s revenues as a result of this rate increase will increase by a similar percentage.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
This item is not subject to CEQA review.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - CWM CPI Adjustments – All Fees and Charges Attachment B - RSWA EDCO Tipping Fee Adjustment Notification
2 May 2, 2016 Item 20 ATTACHMENT A
3 May 2, 2016 Item 20 ATTACHMENT A
City of Del Mar Proposed Monthly Rates - Effective July 1st, 2016
Service Component Change Consumer Price Index - Los Angeles/Orange County/Riverside 2014 242.43 Consumer Price Index - Los Angeles/Orange County/Riverside 2015 244.63 Change in Index 2.20 Percent Change 0.91% 80% of CPI Allowable 0.73%
Disposal Component Change Esconidido Transfer Stn Rate 2015-RSWA$ 46.28 Esconidido Transfer Stn Rate 2016-RSWA$ 47.15 Change in Index 0.87 Percent Change 1.88% 100% of CPI Allowable 1.88%
Current Rates Proposed Rates 7.1.2016
Waste Mgt Sec 3.2.3 Sec 4.1.8b Total EDCO Franchise Waste Mgt Sec 3.2.3 Sec 4.1.8b Total EDCO Franchise Frequency Service City Program Tonnage Subject to Disposal Fee Customer Service City Program Tonnage Subject to Disposal Fee Customer Description per Week Component Funding Fee CPI Component 10.0% Total Component Funding Fee CPI Component 10.0% Total
Commercial Rates Commercial Can - up to Four (4) 32 gal 125.15$ $ 3.82 $ 0.32 $ 29.30 $ 5.38 $ 3.85 $ 38.53 $ 25.33 $ 3.85 $ 0.33 $ 29.51 $ 5.48 $ 3.89 $ 38.88 2$ 50.45 $ 7.52 $ 0.64 $ 58.60 $ 10.76 $ 7.71 $ 77.07 $ 50.81 $ 7.57 $ 0.64 $ 59.03 $ 10.96 $ 7.78 $ 77.76 3$ 75.67 $ 11.28 $ 0.96 $ 87.90 $ 16.13 $ 11.56 $ 115.60 $ 76.21 $ 11.36 $ 0.97 $ 88.54 $ 16.44 $ 11.66 $ 116.64
Commercial - Two Yard Bin 1$ 58.03 $ 9.96 $ 1.30 $ 69.28 $ 21.51 $ 10.09 $ 100.88 $ 58.45 $ 10.03 $ 1.31 $ 69.78 $ 21.92 $ 10.19 $ 101.89 2$ 104.77 $ 18.51 $ 2.60 $ 125.88 $ 43.02 $ 18.77 $ 187.67 $ 105.53 $ 18.64 $ 2.62 $ 126.79 $ 43.83 $ 18.96 $ 189.58 3$ 151.37 $ 27.03 $ 3.90 $ 182.30 $ 64.55 $ 27.43 $ 274.27 $ 152.46 $ 27.23 $ 3.93 $ 183.62 $ 65.76 $ 27.71 $ 277.09 4$ 197.98 $ 35.57 $ 5.20 $ 238.75 $ 86.06 $ 36.09 $ 360.90 $ 199.42 $5.23 35.83 $ $87.68240.48 $36.46$364.62$ 5$ 244.60 $6.50 44.10 $$ 295.20 $ 107.57 $ 44.75 $ 447.52 $ 246.38 $6.54 44.42 $$109.59 297.34 $45.21$$ 452.15 6$ 291.22 $7.79 52.63 $$ 351.65 $ 129.08 $ 53.41 $ 534.14 $ 293.33 $7.85 53.01 $354.20$131.51$53.97$$ 539.67 Extra Pick-up $4.4413.91 $1.30$$ 19.66 $4.57 21.51 $$ 45.74 $4.48 14.01 $1.31$19.80$21.92$4.64$46.35$
Commercial - Three Yard Bin 1$ 60.69 $1.95 11.64 $$ 74.28 $ 32.27 $ 11.84 $ 118.38 $11.73 61.13 $1.96$74.82$32.88$11.97$119.66$ 2$ 111.06 $3.90 22.00 $$ 136.96 $ 64.55 $ 22.39 $ 223.90 $ 111.87 $3.93 22.16 $$65.76 137.95 $$226.35 22.63 $ 3$ 155.80 $5.85 31.65 $$ 193.30 $ 96.82 $ 32.23 $ 322.35 $31.88 156.93 $5.89$194.70$$32.59 98.64 $325.93$ 4$ 203.36 $7.79 41.65 $$ 252.80 $129.08 $ 42.43 $ 424.32 $41.95 204.83 $7.85$$131.51 254.64 $42.91$$ 429.05 5$ 250.92 $9.74 51.65 $$ 312.32 $ 161.35 $ 52.63 $ 526.30 $ 252.74 $9.81 52.02 $$164.39 314.58 $53.22$532.19$ 6298.48$$ 61.65 $ 11.69 $ 371.82 $ 193.63 $ 62.83 $ 628.28 $62.10 300.64 $11.78$$197.27 374.52 $63.53$635.32$ Extra Pick-up $4.221.48 $1.95$7.65$32.27$4.43$$1.49 44.35 $4.25$1.96$7.70$32.88$$ 4.51 $ 45.09 $ - $ - Commercial - Four Yard Bin $ - $ - 1$ 87.33 $2.60 16.32 $$ 106.25 $ 43.02 $ 16.59 $ 165.86 $16.44 87.96 $2.62$107.02$43.83$16.76$167.62$ 2$ 159.44 $5.20 30.75 $$ 195.38 $ 86.06 $ 31.27 $ 312.71 $ 160.59 $5.23 30.97 $196.80$$31.61 87.68 $316.09$ 3$ 231.56 $7.79 45.17 $$ 284.53 $ 129.08 $45.96 $ 459.57 $ 233.24 $7.85 45.50 $286.59$$46.46 131.51 $464.56$ 4$ 303.70 $ 59.60 $ 10.39 $ 373.69 $ 172.11 $ 60.64 $305.90 606.45 $$ 60.03 $376.40 10.47 $$61.31 175.34 $613.05$ 5$ 375.82 $ 74.02 $ 12.99 $ 462.83 $ 215.14 $ 75.33 $378.55 753.31 $$ 74.56 $466.19 13.09 $$76.15 219.19 $761.53$ 6$ 447.94 $ 88.45 $ 15.59 $ 551.98 $ 258.17 $ 90.02 $451.19 900.16 $$ 89.09 $555.98 15.70 $$91.00 263.02 $910.00$ Extra Pick-up $3.994.23 $2.60$$ 10.82 $5.98 43.02 $$4.26 59.82 $4.02$2.62$$ 10.90 $6.08 43.83 $60.81$
Commercial - Five Yard Bin 1$ 84.05 $3.25 17.27 $$ 104.56 $ 53.78 $ 17.59 $ 175.94 $ 84.66 $3.27 17.39 $105.32$$17.79 54.79 $177.90$ 2$ 159.31 $6.50 33.44 $$ 199.24 $ 107.57 $ 34.09 $ 340.90 $ 160.47 $6.54 33.68 $200.69$$34.48 109.59 $344.76$ 3 $231.40 $9.74 49.21 $$161.35 290.36 $$ 50.19 $ 501.90 $49.57 233.08 $9.81$292.46$164.39$$507.61 50.76 $ 4$ 303.47 $ 64.98 $ 12.99 $ 381.44 $ 215.14 $ 66.29 $ 662.87 $ 305.67 $ 65.45 $384.20 13.09 $219.19$$670.44 67.04 $ 5$ 375.53 $ 80.75 $ 16.24 $ 472.52 $ 268.93 $ 82.38 $ 823.82 $ 378.25 $ 81.33 $475.94 16.36 $273.98$$833.25 83.32 $ 6$ 447.59 $ 96.52 $ 19.49 $ 563.59 $ 322.72 $ 98.48 $ 984.79 $ 450.84 $ 97.22 $567.68 19.63 $328.78$$996.07 99.61 $ Extra Pick-up $3.766.98 $3.25$$ 13.99 $7.53 53.78 $$7.03 75.30 $3.79$3.27$14.09$54.79$7.65$$ 76.53
Commercial - Six Yard Bin 1$ 87.29 $4.06 18.27 $$ 109.61 $ 64.54 $ 19.35 $ 193.50 $18.40 87.92 $4.09$110.41$$19.57 65.75 $$ 195.73 2$ 163.87 $8.12 36.36 $$129.09 208.35 $$ 37.49 $ 374.93 $ 165.06 $8.1836.62 $209.86$$ 131.51 $379.30 37.93 $ 3237.38$$ 53.61 $ 12.18 $193.62 303.17 $$ 55.20 $ 551.99 $ 239.10 $12.27 54.00 $305.36$$ 197.26 $558.48 55.85 $ 4310.86$$ 70.85 $ 16.24 $258.17 397.94 $$ 72.90 $ 729.02 $ 313.11 $16.36 71.36 $400.83$$ 263.03 $737.62 73.76 $ 5384.34$$ 88.08 $ 20.30 $322.71 492.72 $$ 90.60 $ 906.04 $ 387.13 $20.45 88.72 $496.30$$ 328.78 $916.75 91.67 $ 6457.82$105.32$$ 24.36 $387.26 587.50 $$ 108.31 $ 1,083.07 $106.09 461.14 $$591.76 24.53 $$ 394.54 $ 109.59 $ 1,095.89 Extra Pick-up $3.546.85 $4.06$$ 14.45 $9.08 67.23 $$6.90 90.76 $3.57$4.09$$68.49 14.56 $9.23$$ 92.28
Commercial Recycling - Two Yard Bin 1$4.20 26.03 $-$ $- 30.23 $ $ 3.36 $ 33.59 $4.23 26.22 $-$ $- 30.45 $ $ 3.38 $ 33.83
4 MayPage 2, 1 2016of 3 Item 20 ATTACHMENT A
Current Rates Proposed Rates 7.1.2016
Waste Mgt Sec 3.2.3 Sec 4.1.8b Total EDCO Franchise Waste Mgt Sec 3.2.3 Sec 4.1.8b Total EDCO Franchise Frequency Service City Program Tonnage Subject to Disposal Fee Customer Service City Program Tonnage Subject to Disposal Fee Customer Description per Week Component Funding Fee CPI Component 10.0% Total Component Funding Fee CPI Component 10.0% Total
2$7.62 47.24 $-$ $- 54.86 $ $60.95 6.10 $$7.67 47.58 $-$ $- 55.26 $ $61.39 6.14 $ 3$ 68.47 $- 11.04 $ $- 79.51 $ $88.34 8.83 $$11.12 68.96 $-$ $- 80.09 $ $ 8.90 $ 88.98 4$ 89.66 $- 14.46 $ $- 104.12 $ $ 11.57 $ 115.69 $14.57 90.31 $-$ $- 104.87 $ $116.53 11.65 $
Commercial Recycling - Three Yard Bin 1$4.71 29.21 $-$ $- 33.92 $ $ 3.77 $29.42 37.69 $4.75$-$ $- 34.16 $ $37.96 3.80 $ 2$8.55 52.99 $-$ $- 61.54 $ $ 6.84 $ 68.38 $8.61 53.38 $-$ $- 61.98 $ $68.87 6.89 $ 3$ 76.75 $- 12.38 $ $- 89.13 $ $ 9.90 $ 99.04 $12.47 77.31 $-$ $- 89.78 $ $ 9.98 $ 99.75 4$ 100.51 $- 16.21 $ $- 116.73 $ $ 12.97 $ 129.70 $ 101.24 $- 16.33 $117.57$ $ - $130.64 13.06 $ 5$ 124.30 $- 20.05 $ $- 144.35 $ $ 16.04 $ 160.38 $20.19 125.20 $-$ $- 145.39 $ $161.55 16.15 $ 6$ 148.07 $- 23.88 $ $- 171.95 $ $ 19.11 $149.14 191.05 $24.06$-$ $- 173.20 $ $ 19.24 $ 192.44
Commercial Recycling - Four Yard Bin 1$5.22 32.39 $-$ $- 37.62 $ $ 4.18 $ 41.80 $5.26 32.63 $-$ $- 37.89 $ $42.10 4.21 $ 2$9.70 60.13 $-$ $- 69.83 $ $77.59 7.76 $$9.77 60.57 $-$ $- 70.33 $ $78.15 7.81 $ 3$ 87.87 $- 14.17 $ $- 102.05 $ $ 11.34 $ 113.39 $14.28 88.51 $-$ $- 102.79 $ $114.21 11.42 $ 4$ 115.62 $- 18.65 $ $- 134.27 $ $ 14.92 $ 149.19 $18.78 116.46 $-$ $- 135.24 $ $150.27 15.03 $ 5$ 143.36 $- 23.12 $ $- 166.49 $$ 18.50 $184.98 $ 144.40 $- 23.29 $ $- 167.69 $ $ 18.63 $ 186.33 6$ 171.11 $- 27.60 $ $- 198.71 $ $ 22.08 $ 220.78 $ 172.35 $- 27.80 $ $- 200.15 $ $222.39 22.24 $
Commercial Recycling - Five Yard Bin 1$5.86 36.35 $-$ $- 42.22 $ $ 4.69 $ 46.91 $5.91 36.62 $-$ $- 42.52 $ $ 4.72 $ 47.25 2$ 68.06 $- 10.98 $ $- 79.04 $ $87.82 8.78 $$ 68.55 $- 11.06 $ $- 79.61 $ $ 8.85 $ 88.46 3$ 99.76 $- 16.09 $ $- 115.85 $ $ 12.87 $ 128.72 $16.21 100.48 $-$ $- 116.69 $ $129.65 12.97 $ 4$ 131.46 $- 21.20 $ $- 152.67 $ $ 16.96 $ 169.63 $ 132.42 $- 21.36 $ $- 153.78 $ $ 17.09 $ 170.86 5$ 163.16 $- 26.32 $ $- 189.48 $ $ 21.05 $ 210.53 $ 164.35 $- 26.51 $ $- 190.85 $ $ 21.21 $ 212.06 6 Commercial Recycling - Six Yard Bin 1 $6.5839.86 $-$ $- 46.44 $ $51.60 5.16 $$6.63 40.15 $-$ $- 46.77 $ $51.97 5.20 $ 2$ 74.51 $- 12.43 $ $- 86.94 $ $96.60 9.66 $$12.52 75.05 $-$ $- 87.57 $ $ 9.73 $ 97.30 3$ 109.17 $- 18.27 $ $- 127.43 $ $141.59 14.16 $109.96$$- 18.40 $ $- 128.36 $ $ 14.26 $ 142.62 4$ 143.82 $- 24.11 $ $- 167.94 $ $186.59 18.66 $$24.29 144.87 $-$ $- 169.15 $ $187.95 18.79 $ 5$ 178.48 $- 29.95 $ $- 208.43 $ $ 23.16 $179.77 231.59 $$- 30.17 $ $- 209.94 $ $233.27 23.33 $
Recycling Bin Extra Dump $3.5432.82 $-$ $- 36.37 $ $ 4.04 $ 40.41 $3.57 33.06 $-$ $- 36.63 $ $ 4.07 $ 40.70
Split Bin Rate - 3 Yard 1$ 43.27 $1.95 12.28 $$ 57.50 $9.97 32.27 $$ 99.74 $ 43.59 $1.9612.37 $$ 57.91 $10.09 32.88 $100.88$ 2$ 78.51 $3.54 22.27 $$ 104.31 $ 64.54 $ 18.76 $ 187.61 $22.43 79.08 $3.56$105.07$$ 65.75 $189.80 18.98 $ 3113.71$$5.12 32.26 $$ 151.09 $ 96.81 $ 27.54 $ 275.44 $ 114.53 $5.16 32.49 $152.18$$27.87 98.63 $278.68$
Construction Bin Rate - 3 Yard 1 bin $51.81 $1.95 10.53 $$ 64.30 $ 32.27 $ 10.73 $ 107.29 $10.61 52.19 $1.96$64.76$32.88$10.85$108.49$
Commercial Recycling - 96 Gal Cart 19.89$1.60$-$ $- 11.49 $ $ 1.28 $9.96 12.77 $1.61$-$ $- 11.57 $ $ 1.29 $ 12.86 2$3.19 19.79 $-$ $- 22.98 $ $ 2.55 $ 25.53 $3.21 19.93 $-$ $- 23.14 $ $25.72 2.57 $ 3$4.79 29.68 $-$ $- 34.47 $ $ 3.83 $ 38.30 $4.82 29.89 $-$ $- 34.72 $ $ 3.86 $ 38.57 4$ 39.57 $-6.38 $ $- 45.95 $ $51.06 5.11 $$6.43 39.86 $-$ $- 46.29 $ $51.43 5.14 $
Commercial - Additional Rates Bin Exchange$5.09 39.67 $-$ $- 44.76 $ $ 4.97 $ 49.73 $5.13 39.95 $-$ $- 45.09 $ $ 5.01 $ 50.10 Bin Paint Charge$- 81.13 $ $ - $- 81.13 $ $ 9.01 $ 90.14 $- 81.72 $ $ - $- 81.72 $ $ 9.08 $ 90.80 Bin Lock Set Up Fee$- 27.98 $ $ - $- 27.98 $ $ 3.11 $ 31.08 $- 28.18 $ $ - $- 28.18 $ $31.31 3.13 $ Locking Fee$- 9.48 $ $ - $- 9.48 $ $ 1.05 $9.55 10.54 $-$ $ - $- 9.55 $ $10.61 1.06 $ Lock Replacement$- 8.88 $ $ - $- 8.88 $ $9.86 0.99 $8.94$-$ $ - $- 8.94 $ $9.94 0.99 $ Overloaded Bins$- 25.18 $ $ - $- 25.18 $ $ 2.80 $ 27.98 $- 25.36 $ $25.36 - $ $ - $ 2.82 $ 28.18 A Bin that needs to be moved: 16 to 50 feet$- 3.68 $ $ - $- 3.68 $ $4.09 0.41 $3.71$-$ $ - $- 3.71 $ $4.12 0.41 $ over 51 feet$- 4.99 $ $ - $- 4.99 $ $5.54 0.55 $5.03$-$ $ - $- 5.03 $ $5.58 0.56 $
Contamination Fee Bins-to recover costs for separating solid waste placed in Recycling Material or Green Waste co $ 46.63 $ - $ - $- 46.63 $ $51.81 5.18 $$- 46.96 $ $ - $- 46.96 $ $52.18 5.22 $
Restart Fee- The fee for Restarting commercial service when a permanent account has been terminated for non paym $ 15.95 $ - $ - $- 15.95 $ $17.72 1.77 $$- 16.06 $ $ - $- 16.06 $ $17.85 1.78 $
Scout Service - per bin times # of pickups/wk$- 37.30 $ $ - $- 37.30 $ $ 4.14 $ 41.45 $- 37.57 $ $ - $- 37.57 $ $41.75 4.17 $
Residential Rates Standard Collection - 35 gal$1.53 9.72 $0.19$11.43$2.47$1.55$15.45$9.79$1.54$0.19$$2.52 11.52 $1.56$$ 15.60 Standard Collection - 64 gal$2.04 12.29 $0.19$14.53$3.09$1.96$19.57$$2.06 12.38 $0.19$14.63$3.15$1.98$$ 19.76 Standard Collection - 96 gal$2.04 14.24 $0.19$$3.09 16.47 $2.17$$ 21.74 $2.06 14.34 $0.19$16.59$3.15$2.19$21.94$
5 MayPage 2, 2 of2016 3 Item 20 ATTACHMENT A
Current Rates Proposed Rates 7.1.2016
Waste Mgt Sec 3.2.3 Sec 4.1.8b Total EDCO Franchise Waste Mgt Sec 3.2.3 Sec 4.1.8b Total EDCO Franchise Frequency Service City Program Tonnage Subject to Disposal Fee Customer Service City Program Tonnage Subject to Disposal Fee Customer Description per Week Component Funding Fee CPI Component 10.0% Total Component Funding Fee CPI Component 10.0% Total
Manual Service$2.30 15.32 $0.19$17.82$3.09$2.32$23.23$$2.32 15.43 $0.19$17.95$3.15$2.34$23.44$
Additional Cart$0.21 1.66 $-$ $- 1.87 $ $2.07 0.21 $1.67$0.21$-$ $- 1.88 $ $2.09 0.21 $
Backyard Service$2.87 19.85 $0.19$$3.09 22.91 $2.89$$ 28.89 $2.89 20.00 $0.19$23.08$3.15$2.91$$ 29.14
Bulky Item 1st item$3.70 28.93 $-$ $- 32.64 $ $ 3.63 $ 36.26 $3.73 29.14 $-$ $- 32.87 $ $ 3.65 $ 36.53 Bulky Item -each add'l$0.53 8.80 $-$ $- 9.33 $ $ 1.04 $8.86 10.36 $0.53$-$ $- 9.39 $ $ 1.04 $ 10.44 Bulky Item -Requiring two people to service$- 52.22 $ $ - $- 52.22 $ $ 5.80 $ 58.02 $- 52.60 $ $ - $- 52.60 $ $ 5.84 $ 58.44
Additional cart cleanings (over 1 per year)$- 9.33 $ $ - $- 9.33 $ $ 1.04 $9.39 10.36 $-$ $ - $- 9.39 $ $10.441.04 $
Delivery of an extra cart$- 9.33 $ $ - $- 9.33 $ $ 1.04 $9.39 10.36 $-$ $ - $- 9.39 $ $ 1.04 $ 10.44
Contamination Fee Bins-to recover costs for separating solid waste placed in Recycling Material or Green Waste co $ 9.33 $ - $ - $- 9.33 $ $ 1.04 $9.39 10.36 $-$ $ - $- 9.39 $ $ 1.04 $ 10.44
Overage pick ups (beyond 2 annual allowances)$- 9.33 $ $ - $- 9.33 $ $10.36 1.04 $9.39$-$ $ - $- 9.39 $ $ 1.04 $ 10.44
Late fee: There will be a minimum fee on any delinque $ 4.66 $ - $ - $- 4.66 $ $5.18 0.52 $4.70$-$ $ - $- 4.70 $ $5.22 0.52 $
Rolloff Rates Rolloff - 40 Yard Service Fee $ 295.29 $ 36.91 $ - $- 332.20 $ $369.11 36.91 $$37.18 297.43 $-$ $- 334.61 $ $ 37.18 $ 371.79 Disposal Fee per Ton $-- $ $2.74 2.74 $$5.45 46.28 $$- 54.46 $ $ - $2.76 2.76 $47.15$5.55$$ 55.45 Weekly Standard Roll-Off Box Rental$- 47.36 $ $ - $- 47.36 $ $ 5.26 $ 52.63 $- 47.71 $ $ - $- 47.71 $ $ 5.30 $ 53.01 Dead Run charge$- 132.94 $ $ - $- 132.94 $ $ 14.77 $133.90 147.71 $-$ $ - $- 133.90 $ $ 14.88 $ 148.78
Rolloff - Compactor$- - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Service Fee$36.91 295.29 $-$ $- 332.20 $ $ 36.91 $297.43 369.11 $37.18$-$ $- 334.61 $ $371.79 37.18 $
Green Waste Disposal$- - $ $ - $ - $4.10 36.88 $$- 40.98 $-$ $ - $ - $4.17 37.57 $41.75$
Emergency Collection and Disposal - City Service in a disaster situation - per box$- 651.46 $ $ - $- 651.46 $ $ 72.38 $ 723.84 $- 656.18 $ $ - $- 656.18 $ $729.09 72.91 $
Rolloff Stand By Fee: per minute after 5 minutes. Max $ 1.95 $ - $ 1.95 $ 1.76 $ - $ - $- 1.76 $ $1.96 0.20 $
6 MayPage 2, 3 of2016 3 Item 20 ATTACHMENT B
7 May 2, 2016 Item 20 ATTACHMENT B
8 May 2, 2016 Item 20 ATTACHMENT B
9 May 2, 2016 Item 20 ATTACHMENT B
10 May 2, 2016 Item 20 ATTACHMENT B
11 May 2, 2016 Item 20 ATTACHMENT B
12 May 2, 2016 Item 20 City of Del Mar
Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Mark Delin, Assistant City Manager Via Scott W. Huth, City Manager
DATE: May 2, 2016
SUBJECT: Discussion on Motorcycle Noise
REQUESTED ACTION:
Receive report and provide direction to staff on which strategies to implement to reduce motorcycle noise.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY :
At the April 22, 2016 meeting, under Oral Communication, Council received public input on the excessive noise emitted by motorcycles travelling along the City’s north-south streets. Staff was asked to return with a discussion of strategies that can be implemented to address this item.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Members of the community have indicated that noise from motorcycles has been a troublesome issue which seems to be getting worse in recent years. We have asked the Sheriff to step up enforcement of noise in the past, and have again asked for this enforcement based upon the April 22nd Council meeting.
This is a very complex issue, and we would like to come back to Council in the near future with some proposed solutions.
Motorcycle noise is regulated by the California Vehicle Code Section 27200-27207. Specific decibel limits are as follows:
27201. For the purposes of Section 27200, the noise limit of 92 dbA shall apply to any motorcycle manufactured before 1970.
27202. For the purposes of Section 27200, the following noise limits shall apply to any motorcycle, other than a motor-driven cycle, manufactured: ______City Council Action:
1 May 2, 2016 Item 21 City Council Staff Report Discussion on Motorcycle Noise May 2, 2016 Page 2 of 3
(1) After 1969, and before 1973 ...... 88 dbA (2) After 1972, and before 1975 ...... 86 dbA (3) After 1974, and before 1986 ...... 83 dbA (4) After 1985 ...... 80 dbA
27202.1. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, a person shall not park, use, or operate a motorcycle, registered in the State of California, that does not bear the required applicable federal Environmental Protection Agency exhaust system label pursuant to Subparts D (commencing with Section 205.150) and E (commencing with Section 205.164) of Part 205 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. A violation of this section shall be considered a mechanical violation and a peace officer shall not stop a motorcycle solely on a suspicion of a violation of this section. A peace officer shall cite a violation of this section as a secondary infraction.
The Sheriff does not use sound level meters to enforce motorcycle noises. Sound level (decibel) meters require extensive training to use, would require certification of the traffic officers, and would require calibration, as do RADAR and LIDAR units. In terms of enforcement, readings taken on a moving vehicle are typically not sufficient grounds to do a citation because of the inability to remove contributed sound from other sources.
It was also brought up about sound monitoring done by the City, and if this exceeded the City noise ordinance. The City typically does not do sound monitoring except under certain circumstances, e.g. monitoring of mechanical equipment such as air conditioning units.
Staff has identified a series of strategies to research which may be helpful in limiting motorcycle noise:
1) Increase enforcement by Sheriff via additional weekend motorcycle traffic officer patrols.
2) Meet with other coastal communities on the 101 to developed coordinated enforcement strategies.
3) Adoption of local vehicle noise ordinances, if determined to be enforceable by the City Attorney.
4) Signage noting “Quiet Zone” or noting a residential area, or noting “We enforce motorcycle noise regulations” or similar.
2 May 2, 2016 Item 21 City Council Staff Report Discussion on Motorcycle Noise May 2, 2016 Page 3 of 3
5) Look at alternate traffic controls – replacing stop signs with roundabouts would a solution in some intersections because then tend to maintain a slow and even vehicle speed.
6) Working with the League of Cities to pursue legislation at the state level for a motorcycle inspection program, similar to the smog program, ensure that exhaust systems comply with sound and smog requirements.
Council is asked to provide direction on which strategies, or combination of strategies that staff should pursue to address this problem.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This item is not on the current Council Goals and Priorities and may occupy significant staff time depending upon the items selected. Sheriff overtime for a motorcycle officer runs about $65/hour. Signs cost $100 - $300 depending upon whether a signpost is required. Other alternatives may vary considerably depending upon the scope of effort.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
This item is not subject to CEQA review.
3 May 2, 2016 Item 21 MEETING REPORT FROM DWIGHT WORDEN
MEETING: Ad Hoc DRB/Development Review Committee DATE: April 19, 2016 The committee received a subcommittee report on suggested revisions to the CPP process. A detailed written report, including proposed redline changes to the DRO, is available from city staff. Some highlights: (1) New pre-CPP process/meeting for applicants and neighbors to meet before formal CPP and before any plans are drawn to identify issues; (2) Erecting story poles for the CPP meeting; (3) 3d renderings and drawings to show proposed projects in context; (4) A volunteer ombudsperson (with DRB experience) to attend the CPP to educate not advocate; (5) Neighbor manual; (6) Increased noticing; (7) Enforcement of requirement that report of CPP be prepared and shared with all attending neighbors. There was considerable committee discussion, with public input, mostly favorable, on the recommendations. Staff and Liaisons commented and made suggestions as well. The subcommittee will return with a proposed final version incorporating changes. The hope is to bring a final proposal to council in June. The committee also heard brief status reports from the other subcommittees: Research/ Design Review in other Jurisdictions (Doyle, Farrell, Graybill, Jamison): Reviewing design review ordinances/practices of 23 other cities. Info is available to help other subcommittees. DRO (Olson, Feder, Meredith, and Bone): Reviewing design guidelines from other jurisdictions and use of guidelines; reviewing whether bulk and mass issues should be addressed in zoning ordinance or DRO.
1 May 2, 2016 Item 22 Zoning (Olson, Meredith, Jamison, and Giebink): Will be meeting with Adam; prioritizing issues; no low hanging fruit. Related Ordinances (Meredith, Jamison, Giebink, and Bone): No low hanging fruit; work in process. COMMENTS AND IMPRESSIONS [These reflect my personal comments and impressions and not necessarily the views of the council or the committee] The CPP subcommittee produced a well-researched, detailed, set of recommendations. Areas of concern included practical concerns about implementation and cost. The committee expressed the view that if the process is made more transparent up front, as the recommendations would require, much of the contention, delay, and expense in the current process can be avoided. Reports of the subcommittees will be provided to staff and shared/posted for all committee members and the public to see in a Brown Act compliant manner.
2 May 2, 2016 Item 22 MEETING REPORT FROM DWIGHT WORDEN
MEETING: Lagoon committee DATE: April 20, 2016 Highlights: South Overflow Lot (SOL ): Restoration (22nd DAA) seeking one year completion extension; Trail Washout by Horsepark: Still under review; Jacqueline Winterer providing $5,000 grant to study bridge and repair options; Water Quality Testing—new monitors and testing will soon be in place with aid and training by Coastkeeper; West Basin: Still performing poorly on dissolved oxygen; investigation underway to determine who has responsibility to “fix” this issue; NCTD: Doing survey and will be planting eel grass as part of mitigation for bridge work; Lagoon Day: May 21: morning (9-11:30) at Birdwing with kids and adult activities ; Afternoon trail dedication/ribbon cutting (12:30-3) with activities, food truck, music, local craft beer and wine hosted by Vigilantes Watermark: Heard a presentation and saw a short video by the developers; the committee will follow up with a detailed review of proposed landscape plans.
COMMENTS AND IMPRESSIONS [These reflect my personal comments and impressions and not necessarily the views of the council or the committee] The committee is doing well, significantly upgrading its activities with an enhanced lagoon day, a new website presence in the works, improved water quality testing, and active engagement in all lagoon related issues.
3 May 2, 2016 Item 22 MEETING REPORT FROM DWIGHT WORDEN
MEETING: SANDAG DATE: April 22, 2016 I attended the SANDAG Board meeting as Terry’s alternate. The key item on the agenda was further review of the proposed SANDAG half cent sales tax ballot measure proposed for the November ballot (see Attachment A). Pursuant to my request, and council direction at our last meeting, this topic will be on the council agenda for our May 2 meeting and we can address it in some detail. A few highlights: 1. It is an $18 billion measure. 2. The expenditure plans are divided between transit and freeways/highways, with about $7 billion for transit, and include $2 billion for environmental mitigation. 3. The draft proposal includes specific projects. In Del Mar these are: bluff stabilization for the railroad, fairgrounds rail platform and bridge replacement, streets and sidewalks. 4. Other projects that impact Del Mar: I-5 expansion to add 1 managed lane each direction and thereafter two more managed lanes; 56 to I-5 interchange; various rail and bus upgrades. 5. NCTD, supported by all its members (including Del Mar), requested the traditional 70-30 split of funds between NCTD and MTS, but SANDAG staff is reluctant to agree. 6. Grade separation monies are also identified, but a local match is required at 20% or 30% which is steep for many jurisdictions. There are some funds that could be used for local match. 7. Del Mar is anticipated to receive $8.3 million over the course of the 40-year sales tax, and would receive $137,000 the first year. 8. The schedule is: a. Review and discuss first draft of actual ballot language: May 13 b. Finalize ballot language May 27 c. Introduce/ first reading of ballot ordinance: June 10 d. 2nd Reading and adoption of ordinance: June 24 e. Measure to County Board of Supervisors f. Nov. 8: Election
4 May 2, 2016 Item 22 COMMENTS AND IMPRESSIONS [These reflect my personal comments and impressions and not necessarily the views of the council or the committee] This is a big deal. As currently proposed the Measure is opposed by some major environmental groups and by some business groups, but the polling shows 2/3 voter support and there is broad support across many environmental, business, civic, community, and labor groups. The issue of other ballot tax measures being on the same ballot was raised and I noted that Del Mar is considering its own sales tax measure at 1% for undergrounding. There was some push back that this was not a good idea for the November ballot. At the moment, it looks like there may be at least one, if not two, stadium hotel tax measures on the ballot, the SANDAG Measure, various State Measures and potentially a Del Mar Measure. We may well want to solicit professional input on whether this timing suits our local measure or not.
Whatever input Del Mar wants to give, now is the time to do it!
Attachment A – SANDAG Agenda Item – April 22, 2016
5 May 2, 2016 Item 22 ATTACHMENT A
AGENDA ITEM NO. 16-04-13 BOARD OF DIRECTORS APRIL 22, 2016 ACTION REQUESTED – DISCUSSION
POTENTIAL FUNDING MEASURE: File Number 3200000 FINAL DRAFT EXPENDITURE PLAN AND KEY DRAFT ORDINANCE PROVISIONS
Introduction
At the April 8, 2016, Board of Directors meeting, results of a recently-conducted public information survey were presented. As indicated in the survey results, there is potential support for a funding measure on the November 2016 ballot among likely voters. The survey results showed that specific projects outlined in the test ballot question as well as refinements to what would be funded with a half-cent sales tax appear to be resonating with potential voters. The Board of Directors is scheduled to consider the placement of a measure on the November 2016 ballot at its April 29, 2016, meeting.
This report provides an update on proposed refinements to the draft Expenditure Plan since the Board’s last review on March 25, 2016. In addition, as requested by the Board at its March 25th meeting, key draft Ordinance provisions on project prioritization, use of local formula funds, and unallocated regional transit funding are included for review and discussion.
Discussion
Expenditure Plan Modifications
Based on a meeting held with the transit operators on March 29, 2016, some refinements to the most recent Expenditure Plan (Refined Hybrid Alternative) have been incorporated into a proposed Final Draft Expenditure Plan (Attachment 1). All of the refinements are solely within the Transit Capital and Transit Operations categories. While the overall funding level in those categories is the same as previously presented, the North County Transit District (NCTD) requested specific modifications to certain transit projects/programs, expressing a preference to prioritize funding for existing services and maintenance over two new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) services that were originally included in the Expenditure Plan.
As a result, and in consultation with NCTD, the proposed capital and operating funds for BRT Routes 440 (Carlsbad to Escondido Transit Center via Palomar Airport Road) and 473 (UTC/UC San Diego to Oceanside via Hwy 101 – Coastal Communities, Carmel Valley) are proposed to be reallocated to expanded state of good repair projects, including Del Mar Bluffs Stabilization and rail bridge replacements along the coastal rail line; vehicle replacements to support COASTER, SPRINTER, and feeder BREEZE bus service; and SPRINTER/COASTER service enhancements.
6 May 2, 2016 Item 22 ATTACHMENT A
NCTD also requested that regional transit capital allocations for station parking, vehicle replacement (rail and bus), and maintenance facilities to support new BRT/bus service enhancements be distributed by formula to provide a level of funding certainty for both transit operators. There was not agreement among the operators about formula allocation of regional funding. Draft language to address allocation of those funding categories is described below.
Key Provisions of Draft Ordinance implementing the Expenditure Plan
While the entire draft Ordinance will be presented to the Board of Directors at its May 13, 2016, Policy meeting, the Board requested that specific provisions of the Ordinance be drafted and presented as soon as possible to give sufficient time for evaluation. The key provisions include: (1) the Priority Corridors Program; and (2) a description of eligible uses of the Local Infrastructure Projects Program funds. Draft text that could be included in the Ordinance is found in Attachment 2. In addition, draft Ordinance language clarifying how the regional transit capital funding would be allocated for station parking, vehicle replacement, and enhanced bus services is provided below.
In summary, the Priority Corridors Program project list includes improvements that would be “early action” projects in the Expenditure Plan. The projects on the list are in different stages of development. The program would be reviewed on a quarterly basis by the Board of Directors, in its capacity as the Regional Transportation Commission, to ensure all reasonable efforts are being made to advance the projects to completion.
The other section of the draft Ordinance presented in Attachment 2 addresses eligible uses within the Local Infrastructure Projects Program. The purpose of this section is to outline the parameters of the Local Infrastructure Projects Program while maintaining sufficient flexibility for local jurisdictions to fund their highest priority needs.
Finally, there are four transit capital funding categories that are regional in nature and not specifically allocated at this time. These categories include: x Transit Station Parking x Vehicle Replacement – Rail x Vehicle Replacement – BRT and Bus x Enhanced Bus Services
Since these funding categories are not allocated to specific projects, it is proposed that the following language be included in an appropriate section of the Ordinance:
The Net Revenues [in this subcategory] shall be allocated through the annual transit operator budget process and the improvements to be funded shall be consistent with the Short-Range Transit Plan. Decisions concerning the allocation of these funds shall be made by SANDAG following consultation with the transit operators and shall be based on the needs of the operators, applicable ridership estimates and other relevant performance based factors.
2
7 May 2, 2016 Item 22 ATTACHMENT A
Next Steps
Staff will return to the Board of Directors at its April 29, 2016, meeting to seek direction on placing a funding measure on the November 2016 ballot.
GARY L. GALLEGOS Executive Director
Attachments: 1. Potential Funding Measure - Final Draft Expenditure Plan 2. Key Provisions of Draft Ordinance implementing the Expenditure Plan
Key Staff Contact: Rob Rundle, (619) 699-6949, [email protected]
3
8 May 2, 2016 Item 22 AttachmentATTACHMENT 1 A
Potential Funding Measure Final &TCHVExpenditure Plan
Amount (Millions of 2015$) Percent
Total Revenues Available $18,194
Off the top:
Administration $182 1% Independent Oversight $10 Fixed
Subtotal $192
Net Revenues $18,002
Distribution of Net Revenues
Active Transportation $540 3% Open Space $2,000 11.1% Highways and GP Connectors $615 3.4% Managed Lanes, HOV Lanes and HOV Connectors $1,940 10.8% Transit Capital and Operations $7,507 41.7% - Transit Capital Projects ($4,785), (26.6%) - Transit Operations ($2,182), (12.1%) - Specialized Transit Grants ($540), (3%) Local Infrastructure $5,400 30% - Formula Funds ($4,322), (24%) - Arterial Traffic Signal Synchronization ($178), (1%) - Rail / Local Road Grade Separation Grant Program ($900), (5%)
Total $18,002 100%
4
9 May 2, 2016 Item 22 ATTACHMENT A
New or Expanded Transit - Capital
TransNet II Plan of Finance RTP Cost Capacity Net Need Proposed (2014 Cost (2015 (2015 (2015 (2015 Route Description $millions) $millions) $millions) $millions) $millions)
Purple Line Phase 1 San Ysidro to Kearny Mesa $2,800 $4,400 $0 $4,400 $4,400 Rapid 2 North Park to Downtown $20 $20 $0 $20 $20 Rapid 10 La Mesa to Ocean Beach $87 $89 $0 $89 $89 Rapid 11 Spring Valley to SDSU via Downtown $65 $66 $0 $66 $66 Rapid 28 Pt Loma to Kearny Mesa via Old Town $12 $12 $0 $12 $12 Rapid 30 Old Town to Sorrento Mesa via Beaches $53 $54 $0 $54 $54 Rapid 41 Fashion Valley to UTC via Linda Vista $55 $56 $0 $56 $56 SR 94 Corridor Express Service: El Cajon Transit Rapid 90 $20 $20 $0 $20 $20 Ctr to SD Airport via Downtown Rapid 120 Downtown to Kearny Mesa $78 $80 $0 $80 $80 Rapid 550 SDSU to Palomar Station via Southeast $59 $60 $0 $60 $60 Rapid 635 Eastlake to Palomar Trolley $56 $57 $0 $57 $57 Rapid 638 Iris Trolley to Otay Mesa $10 $10 $0 $10 $10 South I-5 Corridor Rapid Express Services: San Ysidro to Old Town via Downtown Rapid 640A/B $93 $95 $0 $95 $95 San Diego/Iris to Kearny Mesa via Downtown San Diego SR 52 Corridor Rapid Express Services: Rapid 870/890 El Cajon/Santee to Kearny Mesa and $19 $19 $0 $19 $19 UTC/Sorrento Mesa Mobility Hubs, transportation network First/Last Mile Transit Connections $1,279 $1,305 $0 $1,305 $180 connections SR 94 Centerline Station Transit station near 27th Street $50 $51 $0 $51 $51 Sorrento Valley Station Relocation and Grade separation $242 $247 $0 $247 $247 Airport ITC Intermodal connections to airport $337 $343 $0 $343 $343 San Ysidro ITC Phases 1 and 2 $118 $120 $0 $120 $120 Transit priority measures, fare and customer Technology Enhancements $118 $120 $0 $120 $120 service system upgrades LOSSAN - Double Tracking Various locations $318 $324 $0 $324 $324 Camp Pendleton, Fairgrounds COASTER - Stations $207 $211 $0 $211 $211 (incl. San Dieguito River Bridge Double Track) State of Good Repair improvements, including COASTER Del Mar Bluffs stabilization and bridge $79 $81 $0 $81 $81 replacement COASTER Quiet Zones $60 $60 $0 $60 $60 Vehicle Replacement to support COASTER, COASTER & SPRINTER $133 $136 $0 $136 $136 SPRINTER and Feeder Bus Service Regional Transit Station Parking Expanded transit station parking $120 $120 $0 $120 $120 Regional Vehicle Replacement Replacement of rail vehicles $294 $300 $0 $300 $300 Regional Vehicle Replacement New BRT and bus vehicle replacement $100 $100 $0 $100 $100 Regional Enhanced Bus Services Expansion of bus maintenance facilities $100 $100 $0 $100 $100 $6,980 $8,656 $0 $8,656 $7,531
Matching Funds $3,725 Total Sales Tax Needed $3,807
Financing Cost Attributable to Transit $978 $978 Total Capital + Financing Costs $9,634 $4,785
5
10 May 2, 2016 Item 22 ATTACHMENT A
New or Expanded Transit - Operations
Annual Annual Fare Annual Operating Recovery Subsidy Proposed Cost (2015 (2015 (2015 (2015 $millions) $millions) $millions) $millions)*
New Transit Services - Operations
Purple Line Phase 1 San Ysidro to Kearny Mesa $21.2 $7.4 $13.8 $304.2 Rapid 2 North Park to Downtown $0.7 $0.2 $0.5 $10 Rapid 10 La Mesa to Ocean Beach $4.5 $1.6 $2.9 $64.3 Rapid 11 Spring Valley to SDSU via Downtown $3.6 $1.3 $2.3 $51.5 Rapid 28 Pt Loma to Kearny Mesa via Old Town $1.3 $0.5 $0.8 $18.6 Rapid 30 Old Town to Sorrento Mesa via Beaches $3.6 $1.3 $2.3 $51.5 Rapid 41 Fashion Valley to UTC via Linda Vista $3.3 $1.2 $2.1 $47.2 SR 94 Corridor Express Service: El Cajon Rapid 90 Transit Ctr to SD Airport via Downtown $0.6 $0.2 $0.4 $8.6 Rapid 120 Downtown to Kearny Mesa $5.1 $1.8 $3.3 $72.9 Rapid 550 SDSU to Palomar Station via Southeast $5.3 $1.9 $3.4 $75.8 Rapid 635 Eastlake to Palomar Trolley $3 $1.1 $2.0 $42.9 Rapid 638 Iris Trolley to Otay Mesa $2.3 $0.8 $1.5 $32.9 South I-5 Corridor Rapid Express Services: San Ysidro to Old Town via Downtown Rapid 640A/B San Diego/Iris to Kearny Mesa via Downtown San Diego $2.1 $0.7 $1.4 $30 SR 52 Corridor Rapid Express Services: Rapid 870/890 El Cajon/Santee to Kearny Mesa and $2.4 $0.8 $1.6 $18.7 UTC/Sorrento Mesa Mobility Hubs, transportation network First/Last Mile Transit Connections $3.9 $1.4 $2.5 $55.8 connections Advanced Transit Services Funding to advance transit operations $500
Total New Transit Services - Operations $62.9 $22 $40.9 $1,384.8
Expanded Transit Operations
Local Bus Services Enhanced Bus Services $20 $7 $13 $350 COASTER and SPRINTER Enhanced Rail Services $4 $1.4 $2.6 $97.5 Blue and Orange Lines Increased Frequencies $23.3 $8.2 $15.1 $350
Total Expanded Transit Operations $47.3 $16.6 $30.7 $797.5
*Assumed start dates are approximate and will depend on Board prioritization and ability to secure matching funds to implement advanced capital projects
6
11 May 2, 2016 Item 22 ATTACHMENT A
Managed Lanes, HOV Lanes, and HOV Connectors
TransNet II Plan of Finance RTP Cost Capacity Net Need Proposed (2014 Cost (2015 (2015 (2015 (2015 Route Description $millions) $millions) $millions) $millions) $millions)
Managed Lanes and HOV Lanes
I-5 8F to 8F+2ML, SR 905 to SR 54 $308 $314 $169 $145 $145 I-5 8F to 10F+2ML, SR 54 to SR 15 $343 $350 $177 $173 $173 I-5 8F+2ML to 8F+4ML, SR 56 to SR 78 $1,531 $1,562 $713 $849 $849 SR 52 2ML from SR 125 to I-805 $389 $397 $71 $326 $326 SR 78 2HOV from I-5 to I-15 $1,192 $1,216 $566 $650 $650 SR 94 2HOV from I-5 to I-805 $485 $500 $353 $147 $147 $4,248 $4,338 $2,049 $2,289 $2,289
Connectors - HOV
I-5/SR 78 HOV Connectors S to E, W to N, N to E, W to S $253 $258 $0 $258 $258 I-15/SR 78 HOV Connectors East to South and North to West $106 $108 $71 $37 $37 SR 52/I-805 HOV Connector West to North and South to East $91 $93 $42 $51 $51 SR 94/SR 15 HOV Connectors South to West and East to North $71 $100 $48 $52 $52 SR 94/I-805 HOV Connectors (inc North to West and East to South $101 $300 $0 $300 $300 805 Widening to accommodate) I-805/SR 15 HOV Connectors South to South and North to North $81 $100 $0 $100 $100 $703 $959 $161 $798 $798
Total Managed Lanes, HOV Lanes, and HOV Connectors $4,951 $5,297 $2,210 $3,087 $3,087
Match $1,544 Sales Tax Need $1,544 Financing Costs Attributable to Managed Lanes, HOV Lanes, and HOV Connectors $396 $396
Total Capital and Financing $3,484 $1,940
7
12 May 2, 2016 Item 22 ATTACHMENT A
Highways and General Purpose Lane Connectors
TransNet II Plan of Finance RTP Cost Capacity Net Need Proposed (2014 Cost (2015 (2015 (2015 (2015 Route Description $millions) $millions) $millions) $millions) $millions)
Highways
I-8 4F/6F to 6F from 2nd St to Los Coches $35 $36 $32 $4 $4 SR 52 4F to 6F from Mast Blvd to SR 125 $76 $78 $0 $78 $78 SR 56 4F to 6F from I-5 to I-15 $141 $144 $114 $30 $30 SR 67 2C to 4C from Mapleview to Dye Road $636 $649 $250 $399 $399 $888 $906 $396 $510 $510
Connectors - General Purpose Lane
I-5/SR 56 Connectors West to North and South to East $273 $278 $64 $214 $214 I-5/SR 78 Connectors South to East and West to South $273 $278 $64 $214 $214 SR 94/SR 125 Connectors South to East and West to North $150 $153 $114 $39 $39 $696 $710 $242 $468 $468
Total Highways and General Purpose Lane Connectors $1,584 $1,616 $638 $978 $978
Match $489 Sales Tax Need $489
Financing Costs Attributable to Highways and General Purpose Lane Connectors $126 $126
Total Capital and Financing $1,103 $615
8
13 May 2, 2016 Item 22 ATTACHMENT A
Estimate of Local Share for Future Sales Tax Measure
40-year total 2017 - First Year Jurisdiction Percent Share (2015 $millions) Allocation ($thousands)
Carlsbad 3.45% $149.1 $2,463 Chula Vista 7.96% $344.1 $5,684 Coronado 0.78% $33.8 $558 Del Mar 0.19% $8.3 $137 El Cajon 3.17% $136.9 $2,262 Encinitas 1.95% $84.1 $1,389 Escondido 4.57% $197.6 $3,264 Imperial Beach 0.88% $38.1 $630 La Mesa 1.86% $80.5 $1,330 Lemon Grove 0.86% $37.4 $617 National City 1.89% $81.9 $1,352 Oceanside 5.32% $229.9 $3,798 Poway 1.56% $67.6 $1,117 San Diego 41.95% $1,812.9 $29,951 San Marcos 2.84% $122.9 $2,030 Santee 1.77% $76.5 $1,264 Solana Beach 0.46% $20.0 $331 Vista 3.01% $130.3 $2,152
County 15.50% $670.0 $11,070 Total 100.00% $4,321.7 $71,402
For comparison purposes, the TransNet Extension includes an estimated $76.7 million to local jurisdictions in FY 2017. The Future Sales Tax Measure FY 2017 estimate would represent an augmentation over and above what local cities and the county receive from TransNet in that year of: 93%
9
14 May 2, 2016 Item 22 ATTACHMENT A
Other Allocations
Amount (2015 $millions)
Off the Top Administration $182 Independent Oversight $10 Subtotal $192
Other Programs Active Transportation $540 Open Space* $2,000 Specialized Transit Grant Program $540 Local Infrastructure $1,078 - Rail Grade Separation Grant Program ($900) - Arterial Traffic Signal Synchronization Grant Program ($178) Subtotal $4,158
Total $4,350 *Assumes cost of acquisition, management and monitoring of habitat preserve areas to meet the regional obligation outlined in state/federal agreements
10
15 May 2, 2016 Item 22 AttachmentATTACHMENT 2 A
Key Provisions of Draft Ordinance implementing the Expenditure Plan
1. PRIORITIZATION OF PROJECTS IN THE SANDAG PROGRAM OF PROJECTS (Priority Corridors Program):
A. There is recognition that work on certain high priority projects needs to advance in order to provide better connections to regional job centers, provide transportation choices, and support economic/environmental opportunities for the San Diego region. These projects shall be part of the Priority Corridors Program and shall include:
North Corridors
• SR 78 Corridor: HOV/Managed Lanes and connectors
• I-5 HOV/Managed Lanes, COASTER double tracking, and state of good repair projects
Central Corridors
• SR 52 Corridor: HOV/Managed Lanes
• Sorrento Valley COASTER Station relocation and rail grade separation
• New Purple Line Trolley: Advance project development to compete for Federal Full Funding Grant Agreement. Construct as soon as the Federal Full Funding Grant Agreement has been secured.
• Orange Line Trolley service enhancements
South Corridors
• South Bay Rapid 640: Rapid Express Service from San Ysidro to Downtown, Old Town, and Kearny Mesa
• South Bay Rapid 638: Rapid Express Service from Iris Trolley Station to Otay Mesa
• Blue Line Trolley service enhancements
• I-5 South Corridor: Managed Lanes to support Rapid Express Service
East Corridors
• SR 67 Corridor: widening/evacuation route improvements from Mapleview to Dye Road
• I-8 Corridor: Improvements from 2nd Street to Los Coches
• SR 94/SR125 Interchange: Missing Connectors
B. Following certification of passage of the Ordinance, the [Regional Transportation] Commission shall consider an initial Plan of Finance and budget actions necessary to commence work on the Priority Corridors Program.
11
16 May 2, 2016 Item 22 ATTACHMENT A
C. It is recognized that projects in the Priority Corridors Program are in various stages of project development and the Commission will make all efforts possible to advance all such projects to completion as expeditiously as possible.
D. As Priority Corridors projects progress through the project development process, the Commission shall ensure that sufficient funding or bonding capacity remains available to fully implement the projects.
E. All projects identified in the Priority Corridors Program shall be reviewed on a quarterly basis by the Commission to ensure all reasonable efforts are being made to advance the projects to completion.
2. LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PROGRAM (Eligible Uses):
A. Twenty-four percent (24%) in Ordinance Net Revenues funding will be made available during the life of the Ordinance to fund implementation of local infrastructure programs and projects using the formula specified in this Section, to each city and the County of San Diego (hereinafter referred to as local agencies) to supplement other revenues available for those purposes.
B. Examples of Eligible Uses for funding in the Local Infrastructure Projects Program include but are not limited to the following:
1. Transit: transit capital, operations and maintenance costs, including discounted youth pass programs; transit oriented development projects that offset developers’ costs and incentivize construction of housing near transit.
2. Habitat: acquisition, management, maintenance, and monitoring of natural habitat and open space; other projects that implement protection and preservation programs consistent with adopted natural community conservation plans and habitat conservation plans.
3. Roads: planning, construction, and maintenance of local streets and roads; traffic light synchronization projects; planning, construction, and maintenance of grade separations; planning, construction, and maintenance of active transportation projects such as sidewalks and bike paths; improvements to enhance accessibility to the transportation system by disabled persons; complete streets implementation.
4. Beach Sand: construction, maintenance, monitoring, and operation of beach sand replenishment projects.
5. Greenhouse Gas Reduction: preparation of Climate Action Plans (CAPs) and implementation of transportation-related greenhouse gas reduction and climate adaptation measures in CAPs; development and implementation of Transportation Demand Management projects; energy projects with a nexus to transportation such as projects in the SANDAG Plug-in Electric Vehicle Readiness Plan or the readiness plan for alternative fuels, or other energy projects that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation projects.
12
17 May 2, 2016 Item 22 ATTACHMENT A
6. Watershed Management: preparation and implementation of watershed management plans, which can include elements such as groundwater recharge projects, flood control projects, planning for urbanization and impervious surfaces, and removal of invasive species that interfere with the watershed; projects that capture, treat, and recycle or dispose of stormwater, or implement stormwater elements of transportation project.
13
18 May 2, 2016 Item 22 MEETING REPORT FROM DWIGHT WORDEN
MEETING: TPAC DATE: April 19, 2016 The committee received a presentation from Eric M. on the preliminary conceptual plan to take CDM from 4th Street to Carmel Valley Road to one lane each direction. The conceptual plan would: 1. Modify the intersection of CMV and CDM to eliminate the existing right turn pass through lane from CMV to CDM north, except for bicycles (cars would go to the light to turn) reducing car/bicycle conflict; 2. One travel lane north and south; 3. New bike lane plus new multi-purpose path (walkers, slow bikers) on the west; 4. New parking. After review and discussion the committee voted (readers are referred to the minutes for the exact wording of motions—below is from my personal notes): 1. To conceptually support the plans, with a recommendation that the city investigate the possibility of including a double left turn lane from CDM going south to DM Heights east. 2. To encourage council to consider options for going to one lane each direction from 4th street to 9th street to maintain continuity. The conceptual plans will next be brought to council, and if endorsed, design work will commence and the project will return to TPAC at the appropriate time as it develops. COMMENTS AND IMPRESSIONS [These reflect my personal comments and impressions and not necessarily the views of the council or the committee] The conceptual plans were well received and seem to present exciting opportunities. It was noted by staff that during the Anderson Canyon repair this segment (4th to CMV) has been operating at one lane each way without problems.
19 May 2, 2016 Item 22 TPAC was interested in seeing this concept proceed to the next step, and also favored including the segment from 4th to 9th street. NOTE: I had to leave the TPAC meeting at 6 to attend the DRB Ad Hoc Devel. Review Committee meeting so cannot report on TPAC activity after I left.
20 May 2, 2016 Item 22