1 July 6, 2015 Item 09

July
2,2OI5
Regarding 641- Hoska Dr. Application DRB15-009
Dear Planning Commission,
My husband, Nigel Hook, and I have lived at 635 Hoska Drive since 1999 and our property is a U-shaped
lot that surrounds 641 Hoska on three sides.
Regardine Application DRB15-009
We are requesting careful review of all the decks/patios/balconies. There are a lot of them and together
total around 850 sq. ft. all facing our home. That is a lot of extra viewing which will affect our privacy'
Therefore, Bulk and Mass and Privacy concerns stillexist. The multiple decks/patios/balconies are
certainly contributing to the Bulk and Mass of this project and specifically there are two 2nd story
balconies, one of which is 209 sq. ft.
23,08.078 Reeulatorv Conclusions - Buildins Design
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
ration (FAR) pursuant to DMMC Title 30, the Zone Code. (Ord. 647, Sec.2)
23.08.072 Reeulatorv Conclusions - Generallv
D. The design will create an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of neighboring properties
Nigel Hook
Janet Wilson
Hoska Dr,
Del Mar, CA9201,4
1
July 6, 2015
Item 09
D7,r
g4/ 2l¡1
5
1"
B:
5F
I
t5Ei4B1l¡52t
Regardlngr
Ë41 Hocka Drlve
To:
Del Mar Clty Eouncll
From:
(nrmeI
S
to7 oß( k Þ
uftpÇ
(address)
As a resldent
of Del Mar wlth an lnterest in preservlng the quality of change in our neighborhood, the
followlng items
' lU*{oR q}J ¿'€ reh.l
a
A. Frocedural
New appllcatiöns must be routed through Þel Mar's normal CPP and DRB review processes, And every new
varlance must be handled by the Del Mar's Ptannlng Cornmission processes, These are procêssês eycry nêw
appllcatlorr ls sub;ërtèd to, The sirrrllar previous appllcatlons häve never hecl the benefit of a CPF process.
http : //www.
d el m a
r.ca. u s/Docu-mentÇente rlViewl$ 2
"A CPP ls requlred forr
1) arry new ldetachedl struôture 8reäteÍ thän 500 sq, ft, in sire; and
2) any second story addition to an existin6 structure.
A Cpp may also be roquired in cases where the Planning Director, working ¡n consultât¡Òn with thë DRB Châir,
determines that a project holds the potential to cause adverse impacts to the surrotlnding area,"
- Regardlng Varlance V15"002
to
this unusual lot configuration does not simplify an already unusual lot conflguratlon'
n8ävä fl
r[ánce a nd moving 3 Zz feet does not improve privacy, lt mav further compromise viewing angles
lnto the adjoining property. Creating a variance and moving 3 Y,feel does not provide harmonv with the
F. Plann n8
'fo \
surroundinB neighborhood,
23.08.072 Recujatorv Concluslons : Generqlll¿
D, The deslgn will create !n unreasonable invaslon of the privacy of neiShboring propertles
13.0E,077 ßesulatorv Concluslons - Relatlonship to Neiqhborhood
D, The design is not harmonlous wlth or ls function¡lly incompatible with the surrounrlinB neighborhood in one or
more of the followlng r€sPectr;
2. Structural 3lt¡nt on thG lot
C, DRB Revlew - Regardlng Appllcatlon DRBl5-009
Bulk end Mass and Prlvacy concêrns stlll êxlst, There are multiple decks/patios/balconies contributing to the
Bulk and Mass of this project and speciflcally there âre twô 2nd story decks and over 850 sq ft of patios and
decks,
23,08.078 Renul¡torv Conclu¡lons - 6ulldl48..qçsle[
bulk and
E, The proposed development falls to llmlt the ðmount of deslgn cotnponents wh¡ch unnêcëssarlly add
pursuant
30'
the Zone
(tAR)
Title
to
ÞMMC
ration
area
as
floor
calculated
whlch
ärÊ
not
but
bulldlnt
rria¡Í to the
Code, (Ord, 647, Sec,l)
Datedr
Slgnedr
4
I
'--) ^
¿l-) /:
Plea¡e iubmlt to Adäm Blrnbeum (4FlrnÞ¡gmtÐq"aJmflrciLHg) ör tö Planning Department
CltV of Dol Mar, 1050 Camlno del Msr, Del Mar, CA 9t014
Phonr: 858,755,93t3 Fax: 858'755-1794
2
July 6, 2015
Item 09
El/ø4/2øL5 L6:85
t5848185?9
Regardirrg:
641 Hoska Drlve
To;
Del Mar CitY Council
PAGE
GARYJGNES
øT.
ð^J Ë,ç
From:
L ,4rt¡E
Õ
(addresr)
quarity of change in our neighborhood, the
of Der Mar with an interest in preserving the
followlng items are of concern:
As a resident
A. Frocedural
processes' And 6very new
Del Mar's normal cPP and 0R8 review
New appllcations nrust be routed through
new
cornniìssiun pl"ocesles, Thesê äre Í)rocêsses evely
varìänce must be handled by the Del Mar's Planning
pplications have never had the benefit of a ÇPP process'
"A CPP ls required for;
fi."V new [detached] structure Erêäter than 500 sq' ft in size; and
structure'
Z) any second story addition to än existiñB
Director, working in cçnsultation with the bRB chair'
Plünrì¡ng
A cpp may also be required in cases where the
to cdusê adverse impâÉts to the Surroundìng area'"
determlnes that ð project hqlds the potentiãl
B. Plannlng
Commission' Regarding Variance V15-002
sirflplify an already unusuäl lot configuration'
Addlng a variance to this unusual lot configuratìon does rìot
privacy, lt mav further compromise viéwlng angles
creating a variance and moving 3 /, feet does not improve
3 feet does not provide harmorty with the
lrrto the adjoìning property. crãating ä varìanËe and moving %
surroun
D. The design
will create ân unre¡sonÐble invaslon of the privacy of neiShborin6 properties
not h¿rmonious with or
more of the following resPects:
2. Structural sitiug on the lot
D, The desi8n is
C, DRB
i5
functiorrâlly incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood in one or
Revlew' Regardlng Application DRË15-009
contributing to the
Bulk and Mass and privacy concerr\s still exist. There are multiple decks/patios/balconies
and over 850 sq ft of patios and
Bulk and Mass of this project and specifically there are two 2nd story decks
deck¡.
the
nt of design components which r'¡nnecessarily add bulk and
The proposed development fails to limil
floor ðreâ tation (FAR) pursuarrt tô DMMc ritle 30, the zone
as
mass to the building but which ãre not calculated
E,
Code
647,5et2l.
-l
,:1,¿ "'
"fi,..Slghedl
Please
3
t- -
Datedl
4'f)
ëL*
rdo,, toAdamBirnbaurn(AtsirnÞ[email protected])ortoPlannírtBDepartment
City of Del Mar, 1050 Camino del Mar, Þel Mar, CA 92014
Fhone¡ E5E-755'9313 Fax; 858-755'2794
July 6, 2015
Item 09
Subject:
FW: Project aT 64L Hoska Drive, Del Mar.
Attachments:
20750702-DearCityCouncil-Letter.pdf;ATT0000L.htm;
ATT00002.htm
From: Angelina Neglia
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 9:32
To: Adam Birnbaum
PastedGraphic-2.tiff;
AM
Cc: Janet Wilson; nigel@SilverHook,com
Subject: Project at 641 Hoska Drive, Del Mar
Dear Adam,
I apologize for not being able to attend the council meeting tonight, as I am out of town for work. As we live in
the village of Del Mar, I felt compelled to write and communicate my thoughts on this project.
Over the last few years, I have noticed rather large homes being built in Del Mar, which are somehow being
allowed to be built closer and closer to the boundaries. Also the designs give new meaning to Bulk and Mass'
They almost overpower and overhang our beautiful small streets. It seems more neighbors are losing privacy
and views. (Take for example, Carson Palmer's home just built on Balboa Street).
I understand if a person wishes to buy a home in Del Mar, and build an underground level, this isn't terrible as
you cannot see it, and it provides extra square footage, But over the last few years, I have noticed larger homes
encroaching and pushing the limits of Del Mar's DRB rules.
i have seen other situations like this, where neighbors are losing their views, privacy issues (patios overlooking
neighbor's yards), & homes being given variances to be built closer to property lines, and street, etc' Going
along with this is the placement of pool filters, and air conditioning units being places on boundary lines, and
then neighbors have to live with that new noise. All these things contribute and affect property values.
This long drawn out situation on Hoska Drive is a sad example of pushing the limits of the DRB, encroaching
on neighbors, and pushing for variances, to build bigger homes mere feet from the boundary lines' These are
changes I thought Del Mar's DRB would not allow.
This situation on Hoska now is a complicated mess with attorneys involved. If the design had met all the DRB
rules years ago it would have been approved, and everyone including the neighbors would have been heard,
compromises made, and the plans approved. This is not the case.
This case needs to be reviewed again from the beginning with clean plans, and consideration of the neighbors,
and DRB rules. I appreciate your time in reading my opinion, to keep Del Mar beautiful, and neighbors
protected and heard.
Yours sincerely,
Angelina Neglia
4
July 6, 2015
Item 09
Concerned Resident of Del Mar
5
2
July 6,
2015
Item 09
Regarding:
641 Hoska Drive
To
Del Mar City Council
From:_Angelina & Ross Neglia
(name)
_1955 Seaview Avenue, Del Mar, CA.92074
(add ress)
As a resident of Del Mar with an interest in preserving the quality of change in our neighborhood, the
following items are of concern:
A. Procedural
New applications must be routed through Del Mar's normal CPP and DRB review processes. And every new
variance must be handled by the Del Mar's Planning Commission processes. These are processes every new
application is subjected to, The similar previous applications have never had the benefit of a CPP process.
htto://www.delmar,ca
cumentCe nter/View/52
"A CPP is required for:
L) any new [detached] structure greater than 500 sq. ft. in size; and
2) any second story addition to an existing structure.
A CPP may also be required in cases where the Planning Director, working in consultation with the DRB Chair,
determines that a project holds the potentialto cause adverse impacts to the surrounding area."
B, Planning Commission - Regarding Variance VL5-00
Adding a variance to this unusual lot configuration does not simplify an already unusual lot configuration,
Creating a variance and moving 3%feet does not improve privacy. lt may further compromise viewing angles
into the adjoining property. Creating a variance and moving 3%fee| does not provide harmony with the
surrou nding neighborhood,
23.08.072 RequlatorV Conclusions - Generallv
D. The design will create an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of neighboring properties
23,08.077 Regu latorv Conclusions - Relationshio to Neiehborhood
D. The design is not harmonious with or is functionally incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood in one or
more of the following respects:
2. Structural siting on the lot
C. DRB Review - Regarding Application DR815-009
Bulk and Mass and Privacy concerns still exist. There are multiple decks/patios/balconies contributing to the
Bulk and Mass of this project and specifically there are two 2^d story decks and over 850 sq ft of patios and
decks.
23.08.078 Regulatory Conclusions - Building Design
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 ration (FAR) pursuant to DMMC Title 30, the Zone
Code. (Ord. 647,5ec.2)
Signed:
& Ro¿¿
Dated:
_June
29,2015
Birnbaum ([email protected]) or to Planning Department
Please submit to Adam
-_J.çeüaa.
City of Del Mar, 1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA920L4
Phone: 858-755-9313 Fax: 858-755-2794
6
July 6, 2015
Item 09
Matt Ziskin
624 8th Street
Del Mar, CA 92014
July 5, 2015
Adam Birnbaum
Planning Manager
City of Del Mar
1050 Camino del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Dear Adam Birnbaum:
I am writing to express my support for the 641 Hoska Drive project under consideration by the City Council.
The Lasenskys have already been through an extended process of approvals and changes to the plans for
their home to address any concerns their neighbors may have had. At this point, any continued opposition by
those whose concerns have already been addressed is an abuse of the process.
We are strong supporters of the Del Mar Design Review Board process as a way to include feedback from the
community. However, once that process has been allowed to occur, it is important for all participants to
respect the process. When opposition is allowed to continue to block a project that has already taken all of
the steps prescribed by the city, it weakens the credibility of the process and impinges on the rights of those
who abide by the guidelines of the city.
Sincerely,
Matt Ziskin
7
July 6, 2015
Item 09
Regarding:
641 Hoska Drive
To:
Del Mar CiÇ Council
Cozl 4 €v*L L'f
A< n\å"-'15.r{
From:
lnamel
@wl
(address)
of Del Mar with an interest in preserving the quality of change in our neighborhood, the
following items are of concern:
As a resident
A, Procedural
New applications must be routed through Del Mar's normal CPP and DRB review processes. And every new
variance must be handled by the Del Mar's Planning Commission processes. These are processes every new
application is subjected to. The similar previous applications have never had the benefit of a CPP process.
htto ://www.del ma r.ca. us/Docu mentCenter lViewl\)
"A CPP is required for:
1) any new [detached] structure greater than 500 sq. ft. in size; and
2) any second story addition to an existing structure,
A CPP may also be required in cases where the Planning Director, working in consultation with the DRB Chair,
determines that a project holds the potential to cause adverse impacts to the surrounding area."
B. Planning Commission - Regarding Variance V15-002
Adding a variance to this unusual lot configuration does not simplify an already unusual lot configuration,
Creating a variance and moving 3%feet does not improve privacy. lt may further compromise viewing angles
into the adjoining property. Creating a variance and moving 3%feet does not provide harmony with the
surrounding neighborhood.
D. The design
will create an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of neighboring properties
not harmonious with or
more of the following respects:
2. Structural siting on the lot
D. The design is
is
functionally incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood in oné or
C. DRB Review - Regarding Application DRB15-009
Bulk and Mass and Privacy concerns still exist. There are multiple decks/patios/balconies contributing to the
Bulk and Mass of this project and specifically there are two 2nd story decks and over 850 sq ft of patios and
decks.
E.
The proposed development fails to limit the amount of design components which unnecessarily add bulk and
to DMMC Title 30, the Zone
mass to the building but which are not calculated as floor area rat¡on (FAR) pursuant
Code. (Ord. 647,5ec.2)
-
Signed
Dated:
a
r5
Please submit to Adam Birnbaum ([email protected]) or to Planning Department
City of Del Mar, 1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA92OL4
Phone: 858-755-9313 Fax: 858-7 55-2794
8
July 6, 2015
Item 09
Regarding:
641 Hoska Drive
lo
Del Mar City Council
trNf
From:
+.3
/,
ILIS
tI/
Srø€F-
(name
(address)
of Del Mar with an interest in preserving the quality of change in our neighborhood, the
following items are of concern:
As a resident
A. Procedural
New applications must be routed through Del Mar's normal CPP and DRB review processes. And every new
variance must be handled by the Del Mar's Planning Commission processes. These are processes every new
application is subjected to, The similar previous applications have never had the benefit of a CPP process.
"A CPP is required for:
1) any new [detached] structure greaterthan 500 sq. ft. in size; and
2) any second story addition to an existing structure,
A CpP mari also be required in cases where the Planning Director, working ín consultation with the DRB Chair,
determines that a project holds the potential to cause adverse Ímpacts to the surrounding area."
B. Planning Commission - Regarding Variance V15-002
Adding a variance to this unusual lot configuration does not simplify an already unusual lot configuration.
Creating a variance and moving 3%feeldoes not improve privacy. lt may further compromise viewing angles
into the adjoining property. Creating a variance and moving 3 %feel does not provide harmony with the
surrounding neighborhood.
D. The design
will create an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of neighboring properties
D. The design is not harmonious with or is functionally incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood in oné or
more of the following respects:
2. Structural siting on the lot
C, DRB Review - Regarding Application DRB15-009
Bulk and Mass and Privacy concerns still exist. There are multiple decks/patios/balconies contributing to the
Bulk and Mass of this project and specifically there are two 2nd story decks and over 850 sq ft of patios and
decks.
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 ration (FAR) pursuant to DMMC Title 30, the Zone
Code. (Ord, 647 , Sec.2)
E,
Dated
Signed:
Please submit
9
to
7-3-ll
m ([email protected]) or to Planning Department
City of Del Mar, 1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA92O14
Phone: 858-755-9313 Fax: 858-755-2794
July 6, 2015
Item 09
Subject:
Attachments:
wilson hook 3_ShiftEast-smjpg
Importance:
High
FW: Lasensky
From: Matthew A, Peterson Imailto:map@petersonprice,com]
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 12:55 PM
To: Jon Corn
Cc: Adam Birnbaum
Subject: RE: Lasensky
ImpoÉance: High
Hi Jon, Thank you for sending over the materials. However, this looks exactly the same as what
your clients demanded back in 201 I ( see below and attached PDF) except that they now also
demand the ability to plant tall trees or a hedge in a proposed "easemenl area" directly within
the flat portion of my clients lot (west of where your clients want to relocate my client's new
home).
Your clients' "win-win" is not fhal at all. It would result in a significant delay, more
discretionary hearings with no guarantee of approvals, and a very bad and perhaps dangerous
location for his new home. Your clients' suggestion would place my clients home closer to
8'l' connector ( Rue St. Rafäel), make it dug into the slope with no access to back yard along
that side, with less light & air etc.
As you can imagine our client will not agree to give up what little flat and developable lot he
has, in exchange for non- opposition and the street embankment slope area. Further he cannot
agree to your clients proposed landscape easement. The demand will result in a signihcant
increase in cost for re-engineering and redesigning the entire home, and for the design and
installation for the tall retaining wall(s) on the east and north east corner (within the required
street side yard setback).
There was previously a tremendous alnount of compromise, redesign, and revision to the plan
by -y client, all in good faith, to address your clients concerns and desires. It is unfortunate that
all of the compromises that were previously endorsed and approved by the City Council are not
enough for your clients.
Matt
cc Mayor & City Council
Peter Lasensky
10
July 6, 2015
Item 09
lf.rf,
tc
ìir-
tï.rt
+E
#
¿
-,aÈl
t-
I
U
'#
täÈ
J{ fEJ
.;l.r:.
.,
'ìt
f
,:Jí,
r,,,ïJ
!
"ú¿
dt
'1
F
t ¡¡if
.t
f¡ ¿t--
#r,Ë
,.t
r¡|rtfpfæ
OËtæ
- ãrrf¡
,*$
ft
4t
LI''çj
.-
{/Þ
'ëi"
'
a".É¿
.t
t *ü
i
J
w
I
\
---i'!¿
Ê
ÌÈl
{
-+
ü \
?
J,lfÈo vI
s olt
11
July 6, 2015
Item 09
¡r
FW: City Hall Concept E and Proposed E-2
Subject:
From: Claire
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 7:45 AM
To: Kathleen A. Garcia; Al Corti - Private; Sherryl Parks - Private; Donald Mosier; Terry Sinnott - Private; Dwight WordenPrivate
Cc: Scott Huth
Subject: City Hall Concept E and Proposed E-2
Dear Kathy, Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council,
We tried to reach Kathy yesterday via phone, but were told she is out of the offrce until next
Wednesday. Accordingly, we decided to communicate to all via this email and attachments.
Kudos to you and the architects on Concept E. The only thing we would change is to switch out the location of
City Hall and Town Hall. 'We have taken Concept E (copy attached) and done a "cut and paste" to show what
the Civic Center would look like if the two buildings were to swap locations (See concept E-2 affached). The
orange shading denotes thePlaza in both.
This location swap would have many benefits, including:
1) Open up the gorgeous ocean views as well as the ocean breezes to the PIaza, a meeting space for the
public. In the original Concept E, those views and breezes would be blocked by City Hall'
2)
Push back the Plazafrom Camino Del Mar, thus reducing the amount of traff,rc noise and pollution
levels for people enjoying thePlaza.
green space and City Hall,
City
staff, the public and those
creating a much quieter and less polluted outdoor space to be enjoyed by
attending Farmers Market and civic meetings.
3) Provide separation between thePlazaand CDM with the buffering
We believe that having our beautiful new City Hall proudly located on our main street near the city
center for all to see sends a strong message of civic pride and engagement. Our city's governance is important
to us. It really matters!
4)
5) We believe that the architect will determine the construction cost for Concept E-2 will be much less
expensive as only the Town Hall, a much smaller building than City Hall, will be built on the platform over the
parking garage. The OEC equipment could be housed in City Hall, on terra firma, just across from the Town
Hall breezeway.
6) ConcepIB,-2 can easily
retain the shared lobby between City Hall and Town Hall.
7) Farmers Market in the E-2Plazawould
be further away from neighbors on the west than the present
Farmers Market.
1
July 6, 2015
Item 11
8) The Plazawould still
be visible from CDM, but not right at the sidewalk.
9)
Breezes from the west are generally very welcome in this neighborhood. Rarely do we seek shelter
from the ocean breezes, but in those rare instances, the part of the Plaza directly behind City Hall in Plan E-2
would provide some shelter as City Hall would provide a block to west winds.
In sum, we do hope that you will NOT leave our new Civic Plaza adjacent to the sidewalk. For all the reasons
stated above, we hope you will decide to swap the locations of City Hall and Town Hall and go with a plan like
E-2, giving us a much more user-friendly Plaza.
Respectfully Submitted,
Claire & Tom McGreal
2
2
July 6, 2015
Item 11
Tnl fih¿l
o
sl,
\
I
¡
3
July 6, 2015
I
Item 11
C ¿nu
)¿
/tlra
^,0
a
ru¡
C,f+"' t-t"j¿
r2
ü-ra
I
?tP
.:
aì,
s
I
4
\
July 6, 2015
A
I
ì
Item 11
To:
Del Mar City Council
From: Rosanne and Joel Holliday
Re: Mastet Plan for Shores Park
Date: July 5,2015
The Holliday Family Foundation made an eatly,leadership contribution to support the
acquisition of the Shores property for the purpose of establishing a park that could be used by
our community as open space for both recreation and the quiet enjoyment by residents of all
ages.
As the Phase One report is reviewed by the Council on July 6,2015, we would like to express
the f.ollowing for your consicleration:
o The design should ensure that the predominant use of the park is for individuals and
families to enjoy the open space at all times, consistent with the obligations to provide
field space for the Winston School's students.
o
We are pleased that a number of our friends and neighbors enjoy both allowing their dogs
to play, leash-free at certain times on the property now. and the camaraderie of the other
dog owners. The use of a portion of the property for this activity is fine, provided it does
not compromise the use of the park by families ¿urd individuals as noted above. The only
way to ensure this is to provide a separate, enclosed leash-free dog area. Many would-be
park users will be dissuaded from using 'àn areathat can only be used at certain times,
without having to contend with ofÊleash dogs,
a
If it is unlikely that space will
be made available for the DMCC and Dcl Mar Foundation
facilities in the plarured City Hall complex. we support the staff recommendation to
incorporate such space in the plaruring for the Shores Park, While this will encroach on
the amount of space available as open space, the activities provided by these
organizations enrich the lives of our residents, and some of these activities rnay take
advantage ofthe adjacent park.
We regret being unable to aftend the .Iuly 6th meeting in person, but hope that this
correspondence will be given due consideration during your deliberations.
1
July 6, 2015
Item 12
City Hall Mail Box
From:
Subject:
FW: council meeting item #12
From: S Gay Hugo-Maftinez
Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2015 9:23 PM
To: City Hall Mail Box
Subject: council meeting item #12
Albert and lfinancially supported acquisition of the Shores property for use by everyone in Del Mar. We thought that
this would be an "all inclusive" park with no segregated areas. There are overwhelming statistics that the people in Del
Mar prefer a "shared open use" not a segregated off leash dog area. For many, many years before the city bought thls
land from the school district the "park" was shared by off leash dogs and their owners as well as the Little League and
others. lt worked. When I sat on the city council I never heard anyone complain about the off leash dogs in the
park. Albert and l, along with the majority of others who recently have voiced an opinion, believe that this should be a
shared open use park.
Gay Hugo-Martinez
Via Alta
2
July 6, 2015
L
Item 12
From:
Subject:
City Clerk Mail Box
FW: Red Dot for June 6 City Council meeting regarding Shores master plan
From: Laura DeMarco
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 10:14 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot for June 6 City Council meetÌng regarding Shores master plan
Dear Del Mar City Council members,
The City Council resolution that we used in our fundraising to raise over $5 million from the Del Mar and
V/inston School communities to acquire the Shores stated that the property was for recreational open park space
and school use.
The old DMUSD admin building and its adjacent parking lot constitute almost an acre of flat, useable and
contiguous potential open green space that can be used to create a separate dog park, tot lot, playground, tennis
courts, or other active recreational uses as shown in the diagram linked from our fundraising website:
/www
14108
The old DMUSD building was never intended for long-term tenancy and was slated to be torn down. It is
alarming that one of the stated Shores master planning options is to expand it or build a new buildingatthe
expense ofprecious potential open space.
The City Hall development, which will be 100% self-funded by the City, is a better space for DMCC, DMF and
other community organizations since that facility is specifically designed for offices, meeting space, etc.
The Winston School's current facility and future improvements such as indoor recreational space are available
for community use after school and on weekends so the City does not need to expand or build other facilities on
the property at the expense ofpotential open recreational space.
The Shores master plan needs to take into consideration the active recreational needs of the children at the
Winston School as well as the children of our community. Del Mar only has one public playground and tennis
court, both located far away in the northern beach area. Our only playing field is the undersized baseball field at
the Shores which needs to be expanded to accommodate players over 12 years old and other recreational uses
like soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, football, etc. Our community and Winston's would also benefit from adding
a tennis court as well as a playground to replace the old one that the City removed on the property. It was
surprising to see the suggestion in the draft master plan to shrink the current full length basketball court to half
court size since Winston has a high school basketball team.
As I was watching and celebrating the US Women's World Cup victory last night it reminded me that one of the
US National team members, Rachael Buehler of Del Mar, grew up playing soccer on the Shores Field before
going on to Torrey Pines, Stanford, the Olympics and World Cup. V/e need to create more open space for active
recreation in Del Mar for our children and active adults, especially with the lack of playing fields and courts in
our community.
3
1
July 6,
2015
Item 12
Please honor the City Council resolution that we used to raise over $5
recreational open space at the Shores Park.
million to preserve and protect
Sincerely,
Laura DeMarco
Avenida Plimavera
Del Mar CA
4
2
July 6,
2015
Item 12
f --
..---
--'..
OFFICE BUILDING
NOT A PARI
J
6-t
PARK
óûg
Jt
p.rk
Þ
mrtrg
l¡J
âñrtlgr
ÈIULTI.USE
SPORÎS FIELD
Jd
IU
1
þ
Sæcer, lrCrosse,
Foódt,
Etc-..
I
l%:'
'!w_
v
I
ñflT;
-""'11
CD
¿'
J.
Þ
z
z
¡i
t
-t
¡
,8,
wtNsroN scHooL
BUILDINGg
ii h
I
,ir,l
l
--L)¿'
/,
.
ffi{1 ffiN.
t ----+
i!--\
o ro'
30'
5{)'
\
\r
STRATFOR-B -COU+-T5
July 6, 2015
ffi
:'-.';'rì:-r ;-:WDecnlúeedltt Item
12
City Hall Mail Box
FW: Del Mar Shores Park - Advocate for Open and Shared Space for ALL (People
From:
Subject:
&.
Dogs)
From: Muenkel Jonathan
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 10:33 AM
To: City Hall Mail Box
Subject: Del Mar Shores Park - Advocate for Open and Shared
Space for ALL (People & Dogs)
Dear Sir/Madam
As a resident of Del Mar, I have a strong interest in the development of Del Mar Shores Park which is currently
in the planning process. Specifically, I am a strong advocate of open and shared space among people and
their dogs, as opposed to a separate dog run. I am unfortunately unable to attend this evening's City Council
meeting, but wanted to make sure I voiced my opinion on this matter.
Please contact me
if you have any questions or require any additional information from
me.
Thank you
Sincerely,
Jonathan Muenkel
Stratford Court
Apt 308B
Del Mar, CA92014
Cell: 646-265-9904
6
1
July 6,
2015
Item 12
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: Red Dot for City Council Meeting regarding Shores master plan
Attachment- 1 j peg; ATT00001.txt
-----O rigi na I M essage-----
From: Laura DeMarco
Sent: Monday, July 06,2OtS 12:51 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot for City Council Meeting regarding Shores master plan
please copy this draft master plan that we used in our fundraising to raise over S5M from the Del Mar and Winston
communities, give to the staff and Council members and have this as a slide available for view in the public discussion
period. Note that the old DMUSD admin offices and parking lot are scraped and replaced with recreat¡onalopen space
including a dog park, full basketball court and tennis court.
7
July 6, 2015
T
Item 12
CAMINO DEL
MAR
r tJ.l
OfFIC€ BTILOIHG
..'
v
J
Nør a P^ßf
r,#*1
I
TEr{1{lS
4[+
PÀRK
ôfF¡
dlft
d
G-fç
Þ
ul
t¡¡
NULTI.USE
i+nsetrg¡it-"
SPORTS FIEI.D
Sos.l.trua,Ëoüil,8t
!
,i
aÊ
l-
CN
#"
T
"ft' t*rJ
ffi
íl
li
'f.
.,
|'l
; 'r I -
**ffi\
t-
z
=
ii
.
I
t'
¡erÈ¡b
Þr
#,#=L= =tf.,#*,,
I
tñ
F',! -
ffi
úlrõl
Frùtù
Çrlål
i
I
iv: --.þÞ'"+
.FT
ffiffi&
:{-
r
ri t;
\.
, .. ,ffiri
Ëe_: \
m&ffi
i
t
i
.:.i{€flfH- -
I
I
...*^-L-,.-
¿
++
-l
STRATFORD COU*"7
''t
85.3 Acres
i---- -
-
a
July 6, 2015
IVDÈnl¿þCl!ì
!rîi- ".-.
Item 12
FW: RED DOT Shores Park Master Plan
Subject:
From :
rilyn Stoke Imailto : ma nd rstoke@ea rthl
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 9:59 AM
Ma
in k.
net]
To: Kristen M. Crane
Cc: Sullivan Joe
Subject:
RED DOT Shores Park Master Plan
Honorable City Council
We are familiar with and support Mr. Joe Sullivan's proposed presentation regarding the Master Plan for
Shores Park. We urge your approval of Mr. Sullivan's suggestions.
Marilyn and Randy Stoke
1
July 6, 2015
1
Item 13
FW: Red Dot for July 6 Meeting
Subject:
From: Joe Sullivan
Sent: Sunday, July 05,2015 9:04 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: larry brooks
Subject: Red Dot for July 6 Meeting
TO:
Del Mar City Council
FROM:Joe Sullivan
President, Friends of Del Mar Parks
SUBJ: ltem 13: Placing indoor programming space and offices at Del Mar Shores Park
It seems appropriate to consider how much, if any, of the Shores property will be built out for indoor use by the community. I
suggest it is also an appropriate time forthe Councilto settle the question of the Alvarado House, I understand the Historical
Society would preferthe Alvarado House be placed on the City Hall property. lf that is not possible, then I understand the
Shores might be an acceptable site. For planning of both of these properties (the Shores and City Hall) lthink it would be
helpful for the Council to make a decision as soon as practical on whether the Historical Society will be offered a site on either
of these properties,
At some time in the planning process you will need to consider who would finance any new building (and the potentialcost of
placing the Alvarado House) and how the City would be reimbursed for use of the public space.
Respectfu lly
1
Su
bmitted
1
July 6,
2015
Item 13