Del Mar City Council
September 19, 2022

Table of Contents
2022-9-19 Regular Meeting Agenda.pdf
Item 3 - Minutes.pdf
Item 4 - List of Demands.pdf
Item 6 - SAC Appointment.pdf
Item 7 - 2021 SHSP Award Approval - Structural Fire Turnout Purchase.pdf Item 8 - Library Grant.pdf
Item 9 - Baby Boomers Google Relocation.pdf
Item 10 - Undergrounding Update & Pole Removal Resolution.pdf Item 11 -Long Term Encroachment Permit - EP22-067.pdf
Item 12 - TVS21-002 Initial Consideration Agenda Report.pdf 2 8
13 30
41 60
66 88
93 103
Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda

VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us Civility Works: The Del Mar Code of Civil Discourse: Together we will promote inclusion; listen to understand; show respect; be clear and fair; and focus on the issue.

Remote Regular Meeting

VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY
Monday, September 19, 2022 at 4:30 PM
In the interest of public health, and consistent with the provisions of Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361) and related resolutions adopted by the Del Mar City Council, the City of Del Mar is temporarily taking actions to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic by holding City Council Meetings electronically or by teleconference. This is not an in-person meeting.

Public Participation/Comment
Members of the public can participate in the meeting by either submitting a written red dot comment via email to
[email protected] or by speaking live using the Zoom link and/or dial-in information provided below. The deadline to submit written comments is 12 p.m. on the day of the meeting and the subject line of your email should clearly state the agenda item you are commenting on. Those wishing to comment live should join the Zoom meeting when the item(s) they wish to speak on is announced or at the meeting start time for items not on the agenda.

Zoom Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84790910014
Phone: (669) 900-6833
Meeting ID: 847 9091 0014
While registration is not required, staff recommends members of the public submit an optional tele-comment request form (www.delmar.ca.us/telecomment) to assist with speaker
management during the meeting. For more information please visit: www.delmar.ca.us/publiccomment.

Viewing the Meeting and Access to Agenda Materials
Members of the public can watch the meeting live on the City’s website at: http://delmar.12milesout.com/Video/Live and on Cable TV Spectrum Ch. 24, AT&T Ch. 99 starting at 4:30 PM.

Agenda materials and communications from the public on agenda items, “Red Dots”, are available on the City’s website: http://www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter and a hard copy of the agenda materials are available at City Hall and the Del Mar Library during their business hours.

Special Needs: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate remotely in this meeting, please contact the Administrative Services Department via email at [email protected] or by calling (858) 755-9313, preferably at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting if possible.

Dwight Worden
Mayor
Tracy Martinez
Deputy Mayor
Dave Druker
Council Member
Terry Gaasterland
Council Member
Dan Quirk
Council Member
Ashley Jones
City Manager
Leslie E. Devaney
City Attorney
Sarah Krietor
Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting September 19, 2022 Agenda Page 2
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
II. CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Public oral communications will take place shortly after the start of the meeting. Those wishing to comment on any matter not on the agenda may join the meeting at 4:30 PM using the Zoom link and dial-in information: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84790910014; Phone: (669) 900-6833; Meeting ID: 847 9091 0014.

V. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
VI. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
VII. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
VIII. PRESENTATIONS

1. Update from Clean Energy Alliance CEO Barbara Boswell Recommended Action: Receive an update from Clean Energy Alliance CEO Barbara Boswell.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1001-3, 1403-4

2. SDG&E Reconfiguration Phase 2 and 3 Update
Recommended Action: Receive an update from SDG&E staff regarding the SDG&E Reconfiguation Project along Via de la Valle.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1001-2, 1002-3
IX. 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, staff, or the public so requests, in which event, the item will be considered separately.

3. Approval of Minutes: September 6, 2022 Regular and Special Meeting Recommended Action: Approve Minutes.

Reference: Clerk’s Minutes Book
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting September 19, 2022 Agenda Page 3
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us

4. Ratification of List of Demands, dated September 19, 2022 Recommended Action: Ratify the List of Demands.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 201-3

5. Waiver of Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
Recommended Action: Waive Reading of Ordinances.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-4

6. Sustainability Advisory Committee Appointment
Recommended Action: The City Council Liaisons to the Sustainability Advisory Committee (SAC) recommend the City Council appoint Jennifer Anderson to the SAC as a voting member to serve the balance of a vacant term effective September 19, 2022, and ending on July 31, 2025.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-5

7. Acceptance of 2021 State Homeland Security Program Grant Funds Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Accept $7,234 in grant funds from the 2021 State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) for the purchase of structural firefighting turnouts for the Del Mar Fire Department; 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary grant documents; and 3) Authorize the budget adjustments identified in the Fiscal Impact section of the agenda report.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 201-13

8. Acceptance of State Grant Funds for Del Mar Library Improvements Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Adopt the Resolution (Attachment A) accepting $14,300 in grant funds from the State of California, Building Forward Library Infrastructure Program for the Del Mar Library Improvements Project; 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary grant documents; and 3) Authorize the budget adjustments included in the Fiscal Impact section of the agenda report.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 201-13, 1503-13
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting September 19, 2022 Agenda Page 4
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us

9. Relocation of Baby Boomers Google Sculpture
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the City Council approve the relocation of the Baby Boomers Google Sculpture from the art bench on the Camino del Mar sidewalk in front of the Del Mar Library to the cement planter on the west side of the library’s 13th Street entrance as shown in Attachment A.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1202-5
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS

10. Utility Undergrounding Project Update and Adoption of a Resolution Establishing the Tewa Court/10th Street Utility Underground District Overhead Facilities Removal Date
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive a Utility Undergrounding Project update; and 2) Conduct a public hearing to adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) establishing the Tewa Court/10th Street Underground District overhead facilities removal date of December 31, 2022, in accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section 23.54.030.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1001-2

11. Encroachment Permit EP22-067 – Request to Construct Fencing and an Entryway Structure within the Public Right-of-Way at 1128 Cuchara Drive (Applicant: Vladimir Novakovic)
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) denying Encroachment Permit EP22-067 based on the project’s non-compliance with the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) and City Council Policy 110 (Private Encroachments into City Rights-of-Way).

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 802-1
XI. COUNCIL MEETING RECESS
XII. CITY COUNCIL OTHER BUSINESS

12. Initial Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision on Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Application TVS21-002 TVS Applicant/Appellant: Michael and Angela Deftos
Applicant’s Address: 225 Torrey Pines Terrace
Tree Owners: Harvey and Sheryl White
Tree Owners Address: 473 Ocean View Avenue
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting September 19, 2022 Agenda Page 5
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council set the appeal for a de novo hearing.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 301-3, 301-12, 1403-7
XIII. REGIONAL ORGANIZATION REPORTS
A Councilmember assigned as a liaison to a 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 the agenda.

A. 22nd District Agricultural Association Community Relations Committee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
B. Clean Energy Alliance JPA (CEA) Board of Directors (Druker/Worden) C. CSA-17 Ambulance District Advisory Board (Martinez/Druker) D. Fire Governance Board, Solana Beach/Del Mar/Encinitas (Druker/Martinez) E. League of California Cities – San Diego Chapter (Worden/Martinez) F. North County Transit District (NCTD) (Quirk/Gaasterland/Druker) G. Regional Solid Waste Association (Worden/Quirk)
H. San Diego Association of Governments Board (SANDAG)
(Gaasterland/Druker/Quirk)
I. SANDAG Borders Committee (Druker)
J. SANDAG Regional Planning Committee (Gaasterland)
K. SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Working Group (Worden/Gaasterland) L. San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Commission/JPA (Quirk/Bride) M. San Dieguito River Valley Regional Open Space Park JPA –Executive Committee (Worden/Quirk)
N. Other Regional Organization Reports
XIV. COUNCIL COMMITTEES/SUBCOMMITTEES/COMMUNITY ORG REPORTS A Councilmember assigned as a liaison to a City Committee, Council Subcommittee OR Community 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. Ad-Hoc Referendum Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Druker)
B. Arts Advisory Committee (Druker/Worden)
C. Clean Water Rate Project (Druker, Quirk)
D. Del Mar Community Connections (Martinez/Quirk)
E. Del Mar Village Association (Druker/Quirk)
F. Finance Committee (Gaasterland/Quirk)
G. Housing Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
H. Human Resources Subcommittee (Druker/Worden)
I. Legislative Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Druker)
J. Long-Term Rail Relocation Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Druker) K. Measure Q Citizen Oversight Committee (Druker/Quirk) L. Parks and Recreation Committee (Druker/Worden)
M. Planning Process Subcommittee (Druker/Gaasterland)
N. Safe Rail Crossing and Bluff Stabilization Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Druker) O. Lagoon Committee (Quirk/Worden)
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting September 19, 2022 Agenda Page 6
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us P. Sea-Level Rise Adaptation Plan Implementation Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
Q. Shores Advisory Committee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
R. Solid Waste Procurement Services Ad-Hoc Subcommittee (Quirk/Worden) S. Sustainability Advisory Committee (DrukerWorden)
T. Traffic and Parking Advisory Committee (Martinez/Worden) U. Undergrounding Project Advisory Committee (Gaasterland/Quirk) V. Other Committee-Subcommittee Reports
XV. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS
The following topics/items are tentatively planned for upcoming agendas. The title, wording, and planned date for these items are subject to change. 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 staff report. Please watch our web site:
www.delmar.ca.us for City Council Agendas.

October 3, 2022
Award of Contract for As-Needed Economic and Fiscal Analysis Continuation of Remote Public Meetings
Parks & Recreation Committee Appointment (Tentative)
Amendment to Kleinfelder's Scope of Work for Camino del Mar Bridge Project Introduction of the 2022 CA Building Code Ordinance
Planning and Building Fee Schedule Administrative Update Introduction of the 2022 CA Fire Code Ordinance
Award of Construction Contract for Tot Lot Renovation Project Building Electrification Ordinance – Sustainability Advisory Committee Authorization to Purchase New Del Mar Fire Engine
XVI. CERTIFICATION
I, Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk for the City of Del Mar, hereby certify that a copy of this agenda was posted at City Hall on the 14th day of September, 2022, at approximately 5:35 p.m.
___________________________________________ 9/14/2022
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/ Date
City Clerk

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 6, 2022 – VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar California 92014
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 has 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
Mayor Worden called the Regular Meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Dwight Worden; Deputy Mayor Tracy Martinez; Councilmembers Dave Druker, Terry Gaasterland, and Dan Quirk

CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Attorney Leslie Devaney reported that there were no reportable actions for the September 6, 2022, City Council Closed Session meeting. For Item 1A, she reported that Councilmember Druker was recused from a portion of the discussion due to living within 500 feet of the subject matter location. Additionally, Councilmember Druker was recused from Item C due to living within 500 feet of the subject matter of that discussion.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Quirk led the Pledge of Allegiance.

PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.

CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS & COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmember Gaasterland reported that on September 9, 2022, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Board will consider approving the allocation of $300 million towards railroad relocation and the groundbreaking of the Otay Mesa East Port of Entry.

Mayor Worden reported on upcoming San Diego Gas &Electric (SDG&E) environmental resource fund rebates; SANDAG funding for innovative public/private partnership projects including autonomous vehicles, border crossing, and state-of-the-art managed lanes; City of Encinitas completion and opening of their railroad underpass located at El Portal Street; increase in California Least Tern nesting islands at the San Dieguito Lagoon; Del Mar Foundation annual picnic to be held at Powerhouse Park on Sunday, September 25, 2022, from 1:00-4:00 p.m.; and coastal cleanup day on September 17, 2022 sponsored by Del Mar Village Association. Councilmember Druker provided additional information about the Otay Mesa East Port of Entry as a member of SANDAG’s Borders Committee. 1 September 19, 2022 Item 03
City Council Regular Minutes
September 6, 2022

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Ashley Jones reported on the City’s successful fuel reduction program led by the Fire Department and EDCO, the City’s solid waste provider; that the tennis court resurfacing was complete with courts reopening on Sunday, September 4, 2022, and fence repairs at the courts to be completed this week; and provided an update on the November 2022 election including the Candidate Forum scheduled for Monday, October 10, 2022, moderated by the League of Women Voters and sponsored by the Del Mar Foundation.

Councilmember Gaasterland inquired about the Tewa Court undergrounding project retaining wall installation and requested the the Undergrounding Project Council Liaisons be offered a tour of the project, including the retaining wall, once complete.

CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no public speakers for the consent calendar items. Items 6 and 7 were pulled from the Consent Calendar for Council discussion.

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER DRUKER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GAASTERLAND TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1 THROUGH 5. (VOTE 5-0) Ayes: Mayor Worden, Deputy Mayor Martinez, and Councilmembers Druker, Gaasterland and Quirk; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.

ITEM 1: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: AUGUST 10, 2022, REGULAR MEETING (CLERK’S

MINUTES BOOK)
Council approved the minutes, on consent.

ITEM 2: RATIFICATION OF LIST OF DEMANDS, DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 2022 (CLERK’S FILE NO. 201-3)
Council approved the list of demands, on consent.

ITEM 3: WAIVER OF READING OF ORDINANCES ON AGENDA (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-4) Council waived the reading of ordinances, on consent.

ITEM 4: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-5) Council reappointed Mac McLoughlin as a voting member to the Parks and Recreation Committee to serve a full three-year term starting September 6, 2022, and ending on September 30, 2025, on consent.

ITEM 5: CONTINUATION OF REMOTE PUBLIC MEETINGS IN COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953 (ASSEMBLY BILL 361) (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-7)
Council adopted Resolution 2022-58, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953 RELATED TO ASSEMBLY BILL 361 IN ORDER

TO CONTINUE THE USE OF TELECONFERENCE OR A REMOTE MEETING 2 September 19, 2022 Item 03
City Council Regular Minutes
September 6, 2022

PLATFORM TO FACILITATE REMOTE PUBLIC MEETINGS, and to continue with remote public meetings for the next thirty (30) days during the local emergency declared in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on consent.

ITEM 6: APPLICATION TO THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES COASTAL CITIES GROUP LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE (CLERK’S FILE NO. 1506-2)
The item was pulled from the consent calendar for City Council questions. Council questions focused on how Mayor Worden would represent the City Council’s position in relation to Coastal Commission if appointed to the League of California Cities Coastal Cities Group Leadership Committee and the process for removing Mayor Worden from the position, should the Council desire to do so in the future.

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER GAASTERLAND, SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR MARTINEZ TO SUPPORT MAYOR WORDEN’S POTENTIAL APPOINTMENT

TO THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES COASTAL CITIES GROUP LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE. (VOTE 5-0)
Ayes: Mayor Worden, Deputy Mayor Martinez, and Councilmembers Druker, Gaasterland and Quirk; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.

ITEM 7: APPROVAL OF A TASK ORDER WITH MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL TO PERFORM A PHASE 1 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT OF SAN DIEGUITO DRIVE (CLERK’S FILE NO. 406-1)
The item was requested to be pulled from the consent calendar by resident Beth Westburg. Public Works Director Joe Bride provided a presentation and City Manager Jones was available to answer questions. Council questions focused on the details of the road development’s potential design; the purpose of the title reports being collected as part of this effort; clarification on the timeline for completing the Phase 1 study; whether the City would reimburse residents for the cost of the title reports; whether title reports must be recent; what drainage information the City will receive as part of Phase 1; and cost of potentially expanding the scope of Phase 1 to include drainage related work that is typically done as part of a Phase 2 Engineering Design effort.

City Manager Jones provided additional clarification on the status of gathering the title reports and other property related recorded documents and emphasized the need for the City to work with the residents to determine which citizen group is acting as San Dieguito Drive/Oribia Road residents’ representative.

Mayor Worden opened the item to public comment and the following people spoke:
1) Beth Westburg
2) Amy Cheshire
3) Tate Scott
Mayor Worden closed the item to public comment.

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER QUIRK, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GAASTERLAND TO APPROVE A $64,500 TASK ORDER WITH MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL (MBI) TO PERFORM A PHASE 1 ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT OF SAN DIEGUITO DRIVE. (VOTE 5-0)
3 September 19, 2022 Item 03
City Council Regular Minutes
September 6, 2022

Ayes: Mayor Worden, Deputy Mayor Martinez, and Councilmembers Druker, Gaasterland and Quirk; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATION AND COUNCIL COMMITTEES/SUBCOMMITTEES/COMMUNITY

ORGANIZATION REPORTS
City Council representatives reported on the Clean Energy Alliance; Del Mar Community Connections; Regional Solid Waste Association; SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Working Group; San Dieguito Riverpark Joint Powers Authority (JPA); Parks and Recreation Committee; Sustainability Advisory Committee; and quarterly non-profits meeting.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Worden adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
__
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/
City Clerk
4 September 19, 2022 Item 03

DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES

CLOSED SESSION
SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
Via Teleconference
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Worden called the meeting to order at 2:30 P.M.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Dwight Worden; Deputy Mayor Tracy Martinez; Councilmembers Dave Druker, Terry Gaasterland and Dan Quirk

CLOSED SESSION
A) Conference with Legal Counsel - Significant Exposure to Litigation Number of Cases: Two
Description:1) Liabilities related to Short Term Rental code enforcement; and 2) Liabilities related to the San Dieguito Drive and Oribia Road Combination Pressure Relief and Pressure Reducing Station
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(b)
Reportable Action: None. Councilmember Druker recused from a portion of the discussion related to item A1 due to living within 500 feet of the subject matter of that discussion.

B) Conference with Legal Counsel- Initiation of Litigation Number of Cases: One
Description: Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) methodology
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(c)
Reportable Action: None.

C) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
The Winston School of San Diego, Inc. v. City of Del Mar San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2021-00042977-CU-CO-CTL Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Reportable Action: None. Councilmember Druker recused from this item due to living within 500 feet of the subject matter location.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Worden adjourned the meeting at 3:58 P.M.

Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/
City Clerk
5 September 19, 2022 Item 03
1 September 19, 2022 Item 04
2 September 19, 2022 Item 04
3 September 19, 2022 Item 04
4 September 19, 2022 Item 04
5 September 19, 2022 Item 04
6 September 19, 2022 Item 04
7 September 19, 2022 Item 04
8 September 19, 2022 Item 04
9 September 19, 2022 Item 04
10 September 19, 2022 Item 04
11 September 19, 2022 Item 04
12 September 19, 2022 Item 04
13 September 19, 2022 Item 04
14 September 19, 2022 Item 04
15 September 19, 2022 Item 04
16 September 19, 2022 Item 04
17 September 19, 2022 Item 04
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Mayor Dwight Worden and Council Member Dave Druker, Liaisons to the Sustainability Advisory Committee
Prepared by Kseniia Izgarskaia, Associate Management Analyst DATE: September 19, 2022
SUBJECT: Sustainability Advisory Committee Appointment
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

The City Council Liaisons to the Sustainability Advisory Committee (SAC) recommend the City Council appoint Jennifer Anderson to the SAC as a voting member to serve the balance of a vacant term effective September 19, 2022, and ending on July 31, 2025.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

The Sustainability Advisory Committee (SAC) advises the Del Mar City Council on climate change, sustainability, and other environmental issues on which the Council may wish to act.

The Committee also takes the lead in advising the Council on how and when to update the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), which was developed by SAC in June 2016, and assists in informing Del Mar residents and businesses on environmental and climate action issues. The SAC also monitors the activities of the Clean Energy Alliance (CEA) and provides recommendations to the City Council.

The Committee consists of nine members, including seven voting members and two exofficio, non-voting members. Of the voting members a minimum of six must be residents of Del Mar and one may be a non-resident. Ex-officio, non-voting members may be residents of Del Mar or non-residents and shall be appointed based on their professional experience with environmental and/or sustainability issues. All members serve three-year, staggered terms.

There is currently one voting member vacancy on SAC due to Sean McDowell’s resignation on August 2, 2022. City staff advertised the vacancy and one Citizen Interest Form was received during the recruitment period from Jennifer Anderson (Attachment A). The Council Liaisons to the Committee have reviewed the application and recommend that the City Council appoint Jennifer Anderson to fill the vacancy. If the recommended appointment is approved, the Committee will have a full roster with no vacancies. SAC’s current roster is included as Attachment B.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Citizen Interest Form
Attachment B – Current SAC Roster
1 September 19, 2022 Item 06

THIS IS A PUBLIC RECORD SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE.

Note: Personal information may be withheld from public view as allowed by law

DEL MAR CITIZEN INTEREST FORM
I. APPLICANT INFORMATION
Jennifer Anderson Lynn
Last Name First Name Middle Initial
Del Mar, CA 92014
Home Street Address City, State
Business Street Address (if applicable) City, State
Home Phone Number Business Phone Number E-mail Address
II. APPLICATION DETAILS
I am interested in serving on the following Committees, Board(s) or Commission(s) in order of preference (indicate 1st, 2
nd choice, etc.):
___ Design Review Board ___ Planning Commission
Arts Advisory Committee Parks and Recreation Committee
Finance Committee Traffic and Parking Advisory Committee Measure Q Citizen Oversight Committee Lagoon Committee
Other(s) (please indicate):______________
X
Sustainability Advisory Committee
Qualifications for appointment and/or reasons for application (attach additional pages as needed):

Resident of Del Mar
Climate Reality Leadership Training, The Climate Reality Project (Oct 2021) Education:

BS Communications
MBA
2 September 19, 2022 Item 06

THIS IS A PUBLIC RECORD SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE.

Note: Personal information may be withheld from public view as allowed by law Relevant Experience (job or volunteer etc.):

My background is in technology marketing and spans marketing strategy, demand gen, customer engagement, digital marketing, training, events and communications. Currently, I am at Intel in Global Partner Marketing developing co-marketing partnerships and strategies to drive sales and brand preference. I also bring a passion for the environment and accelerating solutions, technology and other, for our climate challenges. In October 2021, I completed the Climate Reality Leadership Project's Climate Reality Leadership training. I am new to (and excited to be part of) the Del Mar and the North County area.

Name all of the Del Mar Committees/Boards/Commissions that you now serve on:

N/A
Please name all the Boards/Commissions/Committee/Task Forces that you have served on in the past, and if you can, the dates of your service:

Optional: Please list three Del Mar residents who can provide a reference:

NAME STREET NAME (no house
number)
Phone Number
Rich Bokal
Kathy Graham
Residency
Month Year
I have been a resident of California since: Sept 2021
I have been a resident of San Diego County since: Sept 2021 I have been a resident of Del Mar since: Sept 2021
Are you a full-time or part-time resident of Del Mar? ☐ Full-time ☒ Part-time
Is Del Mar your primary place of residence? ☒ Yes ☐ No
Are you a register voter in Del Mar? ☐ Yes ☒ No
The Link, 2019-Present Ambassador Board
Social Venture Partners of Portland, 2011 Investment Committee American Marketing Assoc., 2004-2006 Oregon Board Member American Marketing Assoc., 2005-2006 Membership Chair
3 September 19, 2022 Item 06

THIS IS A PUBLIC RECORD SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE.

Note: Personal information may be withheld from public view as allowed by law III. COMMITTEE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
The following are additional questions related to specific committees. Please answer the questions only for the committee(s) you are applying for.

1. Arts Advisory Committee
Membership on the Arts Advisory Committee is set by category. Which membership category do you best fit in? Select all that apply. (Note that City staff, consultants, and vendors are precluded from serving on the Arts Advisory Committee.)
☐ Resident with an art background
☐ Resident without an art background
☐ Business Owner- Art related business
☐ Del Mar Foundation Representative
☐ Del Mar Village Association Representative
☐ Ex-Officio (non-voting) – with Art related expertise
☐ Other (please explain): _________________________________________________ Describe your experience and skills as they relate to the world of community art and fine art.

Why in your opinion is public art valuable to the Del Mar community? What is your public art philosophy?

2. Finance Committee
The Finance Committee is looking for applicants with financial expertise and background.

Please describe your experience reviewing financial reports, conducting financial studies or any related experience. Please include any experience specific to public entities.

What aspects of the City’s finances most interest you and why? 4 September 19, 2022 Item 06

THIS IS A PUBLIC RECORD SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE.

Note: Personal information may be withheld from public view as allowed by law

3. Measure Q Citizen Oversight Committee
Membership on the Measure Q Citizen Oversight Committee is set by category. To avoid conflicts of interest, members of the Measure Q Citizen Oversight Committee cannot concurrently serve on the Undergrounding Project Advisory Committee. Which membership category do you best fit in? (Select all that apply)
☐ Current (or within past 5 years) Finance Committee Member ☐ Business Community Member
☐ At-large Resident Member
☐ Other (please explain): ____________________________________________________

4. Traffic and Parking Advisory Committee
Which membership category do you best fit in? (Select all that apply) ☐ Business representative (can be a non-resident)
☐ Resident
☐ Other (please explain): ____________________________________________________ What part of town do you live in? Geographic diversity is desirable and will be taken into account.

Check the neighborhood map to verify your neighborhood. ☐ North Bluff
☐ North Beach
☐ South Beach
☐ Village Center
☐ South Bluff
☐ South Hills
☐ North Hills
☐ Valley
Do you have any special expertise or experience related to traffic and parking? If yes, please explain:

5. Parks and Recreation Committee
The Parks and Recreation Committee is looking for applicants with an interest in the City’s parks and open spaces.

Please describe your personal or professional experience related to parks, open spaces, trails, public recreation or any similar experience.

What aspects of the City’s parks and recreation most interest you and why? 5 September 19, 2022 Item 06

THIS IS A PUBLIC RECORD SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE.

Note: Personal information may be withheld from public view as allowed by law

6. Lagoon Committee
The Lagoon Committee is looking for applicants interested in the preservation of the lagoon and surrounding area.

What aspect(s) of being on the Lagoon Committee most interest you and why?

7. Shores Advisory Committee
The Shores Advisory Committee is looking for applicants interested in the Shores Park property and planning process.

What aspects of being on the Shores Advisory Committee most interest you and why? Please describe your vision for the future of Shores Park.

8. Sustainability Advisory Committee
The Sustainability Advisory Committee members are community leaders on environmental issues.

In what ways would you like to contribute to a more sustainable world either in your personal life or on a broader community level?
Please describe any outreach or public education efforts you have participated in related to environmental issues or in other areas. Do you have skills or experience in outreach that you could bring to the Sustainability Advisory Committee?

9. Undergrounding Project Advisory Committee
I hope to help accelerate the adoption of clean renewable energy within Del Mar and North County so that our communities can meet or exceed our Climate Action Plan targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And, overall I would like to help Del Mar achieve success and leadership in achieving our Climate Action Plan.

Throughout my career I have developed and managed community outreach and engagement strategies and programs to engage, educate, incent and activate existing and prospective customers and technology partners to buy, sell and adopt technology solutions. My experience spans digital and IRL engagement strategies.
6 September 19, 2022 Item 06

THIS IS A PUBLIC RECORD SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE.

Note: Personal information may be withheld from public view as allowed by law The Undergrounding Project Advisory Committee is seeking applicants with an interest in the citywide undergrounding project. To avoid conflicts of interest, members of the Undergrounding Project Advisory Committee cannot concurrently serve on the Measure Q Citizen Oversight Committee.

Geographic diversity is desirable and will be taken into account. What part of town do you live in? Check the neighborhood map to verify your neighborhood.
☐ North Bluff ☐ North Beach
☐ South Beach ☐ Village Center
☐ South Bluff ☐ South Hills
☐ North Hills ☐ Valley
Is your utility service undergrounded? What involvement did you have, if any? What aspects of being on the Utility Undergrounding Advisory Committee most interest you? Thank you for completing the Citizen Interest Form. Is there anything else you would like to add to your application for the City Council to consider? IV. SIGNATURE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Please review the important information below before signing and submitting your application. Please note that recommendations for appointments to City advisory committees (other than the Planning Commission and Design Review Board) are made by the Council Liaisons to that Committee. The appointments are then placed on the consent calendar for consideration for approval by the full City Council at the next available City Council meeting. For reasons of privacy, the individual candidates are not discussed at the meeting.

Additionally, the Del Mar Conflict of Interest Code requires that members of the Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and Finance Committee file Conflict of Interest Statements with the Administrative Services Department in conformance with the Fair Political Practices Commission and the City’s Conflict of Interest Code. Other advisory committee members are not required to file Conflict of Interest Statements.

By signing below, you are acknowledging that you have reviewed the Committee webpage for which you are applying and that you understand the conflict of interest filing requirement, if applicable. Part of your service may include ethics and anti-harassment training upon appointment and bi-annually. Visit the City’s Conflict of Interest Code webpage to learn more about the requirement.

By submitting this application, you are signing under penalty of perjury that the information you are providing, is true and correct to the best of your knowledge. 7 September 19, 2022 Item 06

THIS IS A PUBLIC RECORD SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE.

Note: Personal information may be withheld from public view as allowed by law 9/2/22
_____________ __________________________
Signature Date
Within three (3) business days you will receive a confirmation email that your application is received. If you have questions, please email [email protected] or call (858) 755-9313 and a staff member will get back to you promptly.
8 September 19, 2022 Item 06
1 Kseniia Izgarskaia
From: Jennifer Anderson
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 4:27 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Application for Sustainability Committee
Attachments: Citizen Interest Form_Jennifer Anderson.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
Attached please find my interest form.

Best,
Jennifer Anderson
9 September 19, 2022 Item 06
City of Del Mar
Sustainability Advisory Committee
Appointing Authority City Council
Position Chair
Category Voting Member
Silvia De Dea
1st Term Aug 06, 2019 - Feb 01, 2023
Appointing Authority City Council
Position Secretary
Category Voting Member
Bertha E Leone
1st Term Dec 04, 2017 - Sep 01, 2023
Appointing Authority City Council
Position Vice Chair
Ann Feeney
2nd Term Mar 19, 2018 - Jan 02, 2024
Position Voting Member
Valerie Dufort-roy
1st Term Mar 21, 2022 - Mar 31, 2025
Appointing Authority City Council
Position Voting Member
Daria Flores
1st Term Mar 21, 2022 - Mar 31, 2025
Appointing Authority City Council
Position Ex-Officio
Category Ex-Officio, Non-Voting Member
Strowbridge F Watson
1st Term Mar 21, 2022 - Mar 31, 2025
Board Roster
Sustainability Advisory Committee Page 1 of 2
10 September 19, 2022 Item 06
Position Ex-Officio
Category Ex-Officio, Non-Voting Member
Jeanne Nilmini Silva-send
2nd Term May 01, 2022 - May 31, 2025
Appointing Authority City Council
Position Voting Member
Alan Sweedler
2nd Term Jul 04, 2022 - Jul 31, 2025
Appointing Authority City Council
Position Voting Member
Vacancy
Sustainability Advisory Committee Page 2 of 2
11 September 19, 2022 Item 06
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Mike Stein, Fire Chief
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: September 19, 2022
SUBJECT: Acceptance of 2021 State Homeland Security Program Grant Funds REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Accept $7,234 in grant funds from the 2021 State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) for the purchase of structural firefighting turnouts for the Del Mar Fire Department; 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary grant documents; and 3) Authorize the budget adjustments identified in the Fiscal Impact section of the agenda report.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

The City of Del Mar is eligible for $7,234 in Fiscal Year 2021 SHSP federal grant funds through the County of San Diego. Copies of the award letter (Attachment A) and approved grant allocation (Attachment B) are included with this report. SHSP grant funds can only be expended on equipment authorized for purchase by the Department of Homeland Security.

Staff proposes that the SHSP grant funds be used towards the purchase of structural firefighting turnouts for the Del Mar Fire Department.

Structural firefighting turnouts are a type of personal protective equipment used by firefighters as an outer layer of uniform worn during a fire emergency. The turnouts have high-flameresistant properties with thick protective layers, but are lightweight enough to allow for comfortable movement in a crisis.

Some of the department’s structural firefighting turnouts have reached the end of their useful life and are in need of replacement. In addition, each firefighter should be equipped with secondary sets of turnouts in the event the primary set is damaged or out of service.

The grant funds are reimbursement-based, which requires the City to expend the funds prior to requesting reimbursement from the County of San Diego. SHSP expenditures must be made by the grant recipient (City of Del Mar) and the reimbursement requested from the County of San Diego Office of Emergency Services. Presently, the deadline to expend funds and request reimbursement is May 31, 2023.
1 September 19, 2022 Item 07
City Council Staff Report
Fire Department Turnouts
September 19, 2022

Grant recipients are required to adhere to the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Standard Assurances for Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs, which outline policies and regulations pertaining to use of federal grant funds (Attachment C).

FISCAL IMPACT:

Acceptance of the federal grant funding will require the following budget adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Operating and Capital Budget, which will result in no net fiscal impact to the City:

Account Name Account Number Amount
Federal Grant (Revenue) 24.4600.4622 $7,234
Uniforms (Expenditure) 24.5781.2400 $7,234
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The proposed City Council action does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it will not have a potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA. No further action under CEQA is required.

NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This is an operational item and is not related to the City Council Goals and Priorities.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – FY 2021 County OES Award Letter to Jurisdictions Attachment B – FY 2021 SHSP Approved Grant Allocation
Attachment C – California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Standard Assurances for Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs
2 September 19, 2022 Item 07
County of San Diego Office of Emergency
Services
5580 Overland Ave., Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92123 -1251
Phone: (858) 565-3490 Fax: (858) 565-3499
Email: [email protected]
Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization CARLSBADyCHULA VISTAyCORONADOyCOUNTY OF SAN DIEGOyDEL MARyEL CAJONyENCINITASyESCONDIDOyIMPERIAL BEACHyLA MESA LEMON GROVE y NATIONAL CITYyOCEANSIDEyPOWAYySAN DIEGOySAN MARCOSySANTEEySOLANA BEACHyVISTA 2/18/2022
City of Del Mar
505 S Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION OF FEDERAL FUNDING AWARD
FY 2021 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP)
Subaward #2021-0081, Cal OES ID #073-00000
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the County of San Diego Office of Emergency Services has approved your FY2021 SHSP award in the amount of $7,234 as listed below:

Subrecipient Name: City of Del Mar
Subrecipient DUNS: 004952065
Federal Award ID (FAIN) EMW-2021-SS-00081
Federal Award Date: 09/01/19 to 08/31/24
Subaward Period of Performance: 09/01/21 to 05/31/23
Subrecipient Award Amount: $ 7,234
Federal Award Project Description: Implementation of homeland security management grant to support state, local, tribal and territorial efforts to prevent terrorism and other catastrophic events
Federal Awarding Agency: US Department of Homeland Security CFDA Number: 97.067/Homeland Security Grant Program
Research & Development Award (Y/N): No
Indirect Cost Rate: N/A
Match Requirement: N/A
This grant award is subject to all provisions of Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200), which can be accessed at www.ecfr.gov. Non-federal entities that expend $750,000 or more annually in Federal Awards must have a single audit performed each year. Please forward a copy of your most current single audit report to the contact below.

Subrecipients are to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP) requirements. Additionally, Aviation/Watercraft requests, Establish/Enhance Emergency Operations Center projects, projects requiring EHP review, and noncompetitive procurement requests require additional approvals. Subrecipients must obtain written approval for these activities prior to incurring any costs, in order to be reimbursed for any related costs under this Grant Subaward.

Subrecipients are also required to obtain a performance bond prior to the purchase of any equipment item over $250,000, including any aviation or watercraft financed with homeland security dollars. Performance bonds must be submitted to the contract below no later than the time of reimbursement.

Please complete and return the attached OES Grant Management Assessment Questionnaire, 2021 Grant Assurances and Signature Authorization Form, current procurement policies and salvage guidelines. A hard copy of the Grant Assurances and Signature Authorization Forms must be mailed. 3 September 19, 2022 Item 07
Your performance period ends May 31, 2023. Please submit your reimbursement requests in a timely manner, no later than June 30, 2023.

For further assistance, please contact Kriztina Tresch at (858) 715-2321 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Martin Kurian, Departmental Budget Manager
County of San Diego, Office of Emergency Services
cc:

Attachments: OES Grant Management Assessment Questionnaire 2021 Grant Assurances
SHSP 2021 Approved FMFW
Martin Kurian
Digitally signed by Martin
Kurian
Date: 2022.07.26
08:45:46 -07'00'
4 September 19, 2022 Item 07

JURISDICTION
CITIES
LE - 25% of
FY20
Allocation
Non-LE
Allocation TOTAL
Sworn LE
Personnel
Figures
(2020)
LE - 25% of
FY21
Allocation
Non-LE
Population
(2020)
Non-LE
Allocation TOTAL
% Change
from
FY2020 to
FY2021
CARLSBAD 19,209 68,414 87,623 129 18,412 114,463 64,909 83,321 -4.91% CHULA VISTA 33,355 154,349 187,704 224 31,971 272,202 147,469 179,440 -4.40% CORONADO 6,403 18,316 24,719 43 6,137 21,381 16,191 22,328 -9.67% DEL MAR - 7,449 7,449 - - 4,268 7,234 7,234 -2.89%
EL CAJON 18,762 63,086 81,848 126 17,984 104,393 59,639 77,623 -5.16% ENCINITAS - 39,882 39,882 - - 62,183 37,546 37,546 -5.86% ESCONDIDO 23,676 89,048 112,724 159 22,694 153,008 85,083 107,777 -4.39% ESCONDIDO RINCON DEL DIABLO - 7,813 7,813 - - - 7,142 7,142 -8.59% IMPERIAL BEACH - 20,104 20,104 - - 28,055 19,684 19,684 -2.09% LA MESA 10,274 38,468 48,742 69 9,848 59,966 36,386 46,234 -5.15% LEMON GROVE - 19,972 19,972 - - 26,526 18,884 18,884 -5.45% NATIONAL CITY 14,146 39,286 53,432 95 13,559 62,099 37,502 51,061 -4.44% NATIONAL CITY - LINCOLN ACRES - 875 875 - - - 827 827 -5.49% OCEANSIDE 33,504 102,959 136,463 225 32,113 177,335 97,816 129,929 -4.79% POWAY - 32,690 32,690 - - 49,338 30,823 30,823 -5.71%
SAN DIEGO 304,212 - 304,212 2,043 291,590 - - 291,590 -4.15% SAN MARCOS - 59,130 59,130 - - 97,209 55,878 55,878 -5.50% SAN MARCOS FPD - 7,858 7,858 - - - 7,402 7,402 -5.80%
SANTEE - 37,140 37,140 - - 57,999 35,356 35,356 -4.80%
SOLANA BEACH - 12,667 12,667 - - 13,838 12,243 12,243 -3.35% VISTA - 61,121 61,121 - - 102,928 58,872 58,872 -3.68%
VISTA FPD - 11,043 11,043 - - - 10,858 10,858 -1.68%
TOTAL CITIES 463,541 891,670 1,355,211 3,113 444,308 1,407,191 847,744 1,292,052 -4.66%

FIRE DISTRICTS/OTHER
ALPINE FPD - 13,616 13,616 - - 16,224 13,492 13,492 -0.91% DEER SPRINGS FPD - 12,009 12,009 - - 12,242 11,407 11,407 -5.01% LAKESIDE FPD - 39,493 39,493 - - 63,835 38,411 38,411 -2.74% NORTH COUNTY FPD - 33,282 33,282 - - 52,380 32,415 32,415 -2.61% PORT OF SAN DIEGO 19,953 - 19,953 134 19,125 - - 19,125 -4.15% RANCHO SANTA FE FPD - 23,726 23,726 - - 34,208 22,904 22,904 -3.46% SAN MIGUEL FPD - 73,949 73,949 - - 126,111 71,006 71,006 -3.98% VALLEY CENTER FPD - 14,150 14,150 - - 16,367 13,567 13,567 -4.12% TOTAL FIRE DISTRICTS/OTHER 19,953 210,225 230,178 134 19,125 321,367 203,202 222,327 -3.41% 2-1-1 SAN DIEGO CONTRACT 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 0.00%

COUNTY DEPTS
UDC SHARE 0 102,357 102,357 - - - 102,357 102,357 0.00% M&A (5%) 0 175,440 175,440 - - - 168,160 168,160 -4.15% HHSA-EMS 80,000 80,000 - 80,000 80,000 0.00%
OES - 1,101,898 1,101,898 - - - 1,050,941 1,050,941 -4.62% SHERIFF 393,704 - 393,704 2,644 377,369 - - 377,369 -4.15% TOTAL COUNTY DEPTS 393,704 1,459,695 1,853,399 2,644 377,369 - 1,401,458 1,778,827 -4.02% TOTAL ALLOCATIONS 877,198 2,631,590 3,508,788 5,891 840,802 1,728,558 2,522,404 3,363,206 -4.15% Notes:
*Personnel Cap: Each jurisdiction's allocation has a personnel cap of 50%. *San Diego Sheriff includes: Unincorporated San Diego County and the contracted cities of Del Mar, Encinitas, Imperial Beach, Lemon Grove, Poway, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach and Vista.

FY 2021 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY PROGRAM (SHSP) GRANT ALLOCATION PROPOSAL FY2020 - ALLOCATION FY2021 - FINAL
5 September 19, 2022 Item 07
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

As the duly authorized representative of the Applicant, I hereby certify that the Applicant has the legal authority to apply for federal assistance and the institutional, managerial and financial capability (including funds sufficient to pay any non-federal share of project cost) to ensure proper planning, management, and completion of the project described in this application, within prescribed timelines.

I further acknowledge that the Applicant is responsible for reviewing and adhering to all requirements within the:
(a) Applicable Federal Regulations (see below);
(b) Federal Program Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO); (c) Federal Preparedness Grants Manual;
(d) California Supplement to the NOFO; and
(e) Federal and State Grant Program Guidelines.

Federal Regulations
Government cost principles, uniform administrative requirements, and audit requirements for federal grant programs are set forth in Title 2, Part 200 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Updates are issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/.

State and federal grant award requirements are set forth below. The Applicant hereby agrees to comply with the following:

1. Proof of Authority
The Applicant will obtain proof of authority from the city council, governing board, or authorized body in support of this project. This written authorization must specify that the Applicant and the city council, governing board, or authorized body agree:
(a) To provide all matching funds required for the grant project and that any cash match will be appropriated as required;
(b) Any liability arising out of the performance of this agreement shall be the responsibility of the Applicant and the city council, governing board, or authorized body;
(c) Grant funds shall not be used to supplant expenditures controlled by the city council, governing board, or authorized body;
6 September 19, 2022 Item 07
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

(d) Applicant is authorized by the city council, governing board, or authorized body to apply for federal assistance, and the institutional, managerial and financial capability (including funds sufficient to pay the non-federal share of project cost, if any) to ensure proper planning, management and completion of the project described in this application; and
(e) Official executing this agreement is authorized by the Applicant.

This Proof of Authority must be maintained on file and readily available upon request.

2. Period of Performance
The period of performance is specified in the Award. The Applicant is only authorized to perform allowable activities approved under the award, within the period of performance.

3. Lobbying and Political Activities
As required by Section 1352, Title 31 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), for persons entering into a contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement from an agency or requests or receives from an agency a commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan, the Applicant certifies that:
(a) No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of an agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
(b) If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying”, in accordance with its instructions.
(c) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. 7 September 19, 2022 Item 07
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

The Applicant will also comply with provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 1501- 1508 and §§ 7324-7328) which limit the political activities of employees whose principal employment activities are funded in whole or in part with federal funds.

Finally, the Applicant agrees that federal funds will not be used, directly or indirectly, to support the enactment, repeal, modification or adoption of any law, regulation or policy without the express written approval from the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) or the federal awarding agency.

4. Debarment and Suspension
As required by Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, and 2 C.F.R. § 200.214 and codified in 2 C.F.R. Part 180, Debarment and Suspension, the Applicant will provide protection against waste, fraud, and abuse by debarring or suspending those persons deemed irresponsible in their dealings with the federal government. The Applicant certifies that it and its principals, recipients, or subrecipients:
(a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any federal department or agency;
(b) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of federal or state antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property;
(c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (federal, state, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (2)(b) of this certification; and (d) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application had one or more public transaction (federal, state, or local) terminated for cause or default.

Where the Applicant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, he or she shall attach an explanation to this application.

5. Non-Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity
The Applicant will comply with all state and federal statutes relating to nondiscrimination, including:
8 September 19, 2022 Item 07
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

(a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law (P.L.) 88-352 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et. seq.) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin and requires that recipients of federal financial assistance take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) to their programs and services;
(b) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, (20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1683, and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded educational program or activity;
(c) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 U.S.C. § 794), which prohibits discrimination against those with disabilities or access and functional needs; (d) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101- 12213), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and requires buildings and structures be accessible to those with disabilities and access and functional needs;
(e) Age Discrimination Act of 1975, (42 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6107), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age;
(f) Public Health Service Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. §§ 290 dd—2), relating to confidentiality of patient records regarding substance abuse treatment; (g) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.), relating to nondiscrimination in the sale, rental or financing of housing as implemented by the Department of Housing and Urban Development at 24 C.F.R. Part100. The prohibition on disability discrimination includes the requirement that new multifamily housing with four or more dwelling units—i.e., the public and common use areas and individual apartment units (all units in buildings with elevators and ground-floor units in buildings without elevators)— be designed and constructed with certain accessible features (See 24 C.F.R. § 100.201); (h) Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do over $10,000 in Government business in one year from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identification or national origin;
(i) Executive Order 11375, which bans discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identification, or national origin in hiring and employment in both the United States federal workforce and on the part of government contractors;
(j) California Public Contract Code § 10295.3, which prohibits discrimination based on domestic partnerships and those in same sex marriages; 9 September 19, 2022 Item 07
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

(k) DHS policy to ensure the equal treatment of faith-based organizations, under which all applicants and recipients must comply with equal treatment policies and requirements contained in 6 C.F.R. Part 19;
(l) The Applicant will comply with California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (California Government Code §§12940, 12945, 12945.2), as applicable.

FEHA prohibits harassment and discrimination in employment because of ancestry, familial status, race, color, religious creed (including religious dress and grooming practices), sex (which includes pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding and medical conditions related to pregnancy, childbirth or breastfeeding), gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, mental and physical disability, genetic information, medical condition, age, pregnancy, denial of medical and family care leave, or pregnancy disability leave, military and veteran status, and/or retaliation for protesting illegal discrimination related to one of these categories, or for reporting patient abuse in tax supported institutions; (m)Any other nondiscrimination provisions in the specific statute(s) under which application for federal assistance is being made; and
(n) The requirements of any other nondiscrimination statute(s) that may apply to this application.

6. Drug-Free Workplace
As required by the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.), the Applicant certifies that it will maintain a drug-free workplace and a drug-free awareness program as outlined in the Act.

7. Environmental Standards
The Applicant will comply with state and federal environmental standards, including:
(a) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000- 21177), to include coordination with the city or county planning agency;
(b) CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, §§ 15000- 15387);
(c) Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), which establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters; (d) Federal Clean Air Act of 1955 (42 U.S.C. § 7401) which regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources;
10 September 19, 2022 Item 07
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

(e) Institution of environmental quality control measures under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (P.L. 91-190); the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA; and Executive Order 12898 which focuses on the environmentaland human health effects of federal actions on minority and low-income populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities;
(f) Evaluation of flood hazards in floodplains in accordance with Executive Order 11988;
(g) Executive Order 11514 which sets forth national environmental standards; (h) Executive Order 11738 instituted to assure that each federal agency empowered to enter into contracts for the procurement of goods, materials, or services and each federal agency empowered to extend federal assistance by way of grant, loan, or contract shall undertake such procurement and assistance activities in a manner that will result in effective enforcement of the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Executive Order 11990 which requires preservation of wetlands;
(i) The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, (P.L. 93-523); (j) The Endangered Species Act of 1973, (P.L. 93-205);
(k) Assurance of project consistency with the approved state management program developed under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. §§1451 etseq.);
(l) Conformity of Federal Actions to State (Clear Air) Implementation Plans under Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act of 1955, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§7401 et seq.);
(m)Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. § 1271 et seq.) related to protecting components or potential components of the national wildand scenic rivers system.

The Applicant shall not be: 1) in violation of any order or resolution promulgated by the State Air Resources Board or an air pollution district; 2) subject to a cease and desist order pursuant to § 13301 of the California Water Code for violation of waste discharge requirements or discharge prohibitions; or 3) determined to be in violation of federal law relating to air or water pollution.
11 September 19, 2022 Item 07
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

8. Audits
For subrecipients expending $750,000 or more in federal grant funds annually, the Applicant will cause to be performed the required financial and compliance audits in accordance with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 200, Subpart F Audit Requirements.

9. Cooperation and Access to Records
All Applicants must cooperate with any compliance reviews or investigations conducted by DHS. In accordance with 2 C.F.R. § 200.337, the Applicant will give the awarding agency, the Comptroller General of the United States and, if appropriate, the state, through any authorized representative, access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the award. The Applicant will require any subrecipients, contractors, successors, transferees and assignees to acknowledge and agree to comply with this provision.

10. Conflict of Interest
The Applicant will establish safeguards to prohibit the Applicant’s employees from using their positions for a purpose that constitutes or presents the appearance of personal or organizational conflict of interest, or personal gain.

11. Financial Management
False Claims for Payment - The Applicant will comply with 31 U.S.C §§ 3729-3733 which sets forth that no subrecipient, recipient, or subrecipient shall submit a false claim for payment, reimbursement or advance.

12. Reporting - Accountability
The Applicant agrees to comply with applicable provisions of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) (P.L. 109-282), specifically (a) the reporting of subawards obligating $30,000 or more in federal funds and (b) executive compensation data for first-tier subawards. This includes the provisions of FFATA, which includes requirements for executive compensation, and also requirements implementing the Act for the non-federal entity at 2 C.F.R. Part 25 Financial Assistance Use of Universal Identifier and Central Contractor Registration and 2 C.F.R.

Part 170 Reporting Subaward and Executive Compensation Information.

13. Whistleblower Protections
The Applicant also must comply with statutory requirements for whistleblower protections at 10 U.S.C. § 2409, 41 U.S.C. § 4712, and 10 U.S.C. § 2324, 41 U.S.C. § 4304 and § 4310.
12 September 19, 2022 Item 07
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

14. Human Trafficking
The Applicant will comply with the requirements of Section 106(g) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, as amended (22 U.S.C. § 7104) which prohibits grant award recipients or a subrecipient from: (1) engaging in trafficking in persons during the period of time that the award is in effect; (2) procuring a commercial sex act during the period of time that the award is in effect; (3) using forced labor in the performance of the award or subawards under the award.

15. Labor Standards
The Applicant will comply with the following federal labor standards:
(a) The Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. §§ 276a to 276a-7), as applicable, and the Copeland Act (40 U.S.C. § 3145 and 18 U.S.C. § 874) and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. §§ 327-333), regarding labor standards for federally-assisted construction contracts or subcontracts, and (b) The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. § 201 et al.) as they apply to employees of institutes of higher learning (IHE), hospitals and other non-profit organizations.

16. Worker’s Compensation
The Applicant must comply with provisions which require every employer to be insured to protect workers who may be injured on the job at all times during the performance of the work of this Agreement, as per the workers compensation laws set forth in California Labor Code §§ 3700 et seq.

17. Property-Related
If applicable to the type of project funded by this federal award, the Applicant will:
(a) Comply with the requirements of Titles II and III of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646) which provide for fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced or whose property is acquired as a result of federal or federally-assisted programs. These requirements apply to all interests in real property acquired for project purposes regardless of federal participation in purchase; (b) Comply with flood insurance purchase requirements of Section 102(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234) which requires subrecipients in a special flood hazard area to participate in the program and to purchase flood insurance if the total cost of insurable construction and acquisition is $10,000 or more;
13 September 19, 2022 Item 07
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

(c) Assist the awarding agency in assuring compliance with Section 106 of the (d) National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 470), Executive Order 11593 (identification and protection of historic properties), and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. §469a-1 et seq.); and
(e) Comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. § 4831 and 24 CFR Part 35) which prohibits the use of lead-based paint in construction or rehabilitation of residence structures.

18. Certifications Applicable Only to Federally-Funded Construction Projects For all construction projects, the Applicant will:
(a) Not dispose of, modify the use of, or change the terms of the real property title or other interest in the site and facilities without permission and instructions from the awarding agency. Will record the federal awarding agency directives and will include a covenant in the title of real property acquired in whole or in part with federal assistance funds to assure nondiscrimination during the useful life of the project;
(b) Comply with the requirements of the awarding agency with regard to the drafting, review and approval of construction plans and specifications;and (c) Provide and maintain competent and adequate engineering supervision at the construction site to ensure that the complete work conforms with the approved plans and specifications and will furnish progressive reports and such other information as may be required by the assistance awarding agency or State.

19. Use of Cellular Device While Driving is Prohibited
Applicants are required to comply with California Vehicle Code sections 23123 and 23123.5. These laws prohibit driving motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication. Drivers are also prohibited from the use of a wireless telephone without hands-free listening and talking, unless to make an emergency call to 911, law enforcement, or similar services.
14 September 19, 2022 Item 07
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

20. California Public Records Act and Freedom of Information Act The Applicant acknowledges that all information submitted in the course of applying for funding under this program, or provided in the course of an entity’s grant management activities that are under Federal control, is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the California Public Records Act, California Government Code section 6250 et seq. The Applicant should consider these laws and consult its own State and local laws and regulations regarding the release of information when reporting sensitive matters in the grant application, needs assessment, and strategic planning process.

HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM (HSGP) –

PROGRAM SPECIFIC ASSURANCES / CERTIFICATIONS

21. Acknowledgment of Federal Funding from DHS
All recipients must acknowledge their use of federal funding when issuing statements, press releases, requests for proposals, bid invitations, and other documents describing projects or programs funded in whole or in part with federal funds.

22. Activities Conducted Abroad
All recipients must ensure that project activities carried on outside the United States are coordinated as necessary with appropriate government authorities and that appropriate licenses, permits, or approvals are obtained.

23. Best Practices for Collection and Use of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) DHS defines personally identifiable information (PII) as any information that permits the identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred, including any information that is linked or linkable to that individual. All recipients who collectPII are required to have a publicly-available privacy policy that describes standards on the usage and maintenance of PII they collect. Recipients may also find the DHS Privacy Impact Assessments: Privacy Guidance and Privacy template a useful resource respectively.

24. Copyright
All recipients must affix the applicable copyright notices of 17 U.S.C. §§ 401 or 402 and an acknowledgement of U.S. Government sponsorship (including the award number) to any work first produced under federal financial assistance awards. 15 September 19, 2022 Item 07
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

25. Duplication of Benefits
Any cost allocable to a particular federal financial assistance award provided for in 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Subpart E may not be charged to other federal financial assistance awards to overcome fund deficiencies, to avoid restrictions imposed by federal statutes, regulations, or federal financial assistance award terms and conditions, or for other reasons. However, these prohibitions would not preclude recipients from shifting costs that are allowable under two or more awards in accordance with existing federal statutes, regulations, or the federal financial assistance award terms and conditions.

26. Energy Policy and Conservation Act
All recipients must comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 6201 which contain policies relating to energy efficiency that are defined in the state energy conservation plan issued in compliance with this Act.

27. Federal Debt Status
All recipients are required to be non-delinquent in their repayment of any federal debt. Examples of relevant debt include delinquent payroll and other taxes, audit disallowances, and benefit overpayments. See OMB Circular A-129.

28. Fly America Act of 1974
All recipients must comply with Preference for U.S. Flag Air Carriers: (air carriers holding certificates under 49 U.S.C. § 41102) for international air transportation of people and property to the extent that such service is available, in accordance with the International Air Transportation Fair Competitive Practices Act of 1974 (49 U.S.C. § 40118) and the interpretative guidelines issued by the Comptroller General of the United States in the March 31, 1981, amendment to Comptroller General Decision B138942.

29. Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990
In accordance with Section 6 of the Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990, all Applicants must ensure that all conference, meeting, convention, or training space funded in whole or in part with federal funds complies with the fire prevention and control guidelines of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 2225a.
16 September 19, 2022 Item 07
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

30. Non-supplanting Requirement
All recipients who receive federal financial assistance awards made under programs that prohibit supplanting by law must ensure that federal funds do not replace (supplant) funds that have been budgeted for the same purpose through nonfederal sources.

31. Patents and Intellectual Property Rights
Unless otherwise provided by law, recipients are subject to the Bayh-Dole Act, Pub. L.

No. 96-517, as amended, and codified in 35 U.S.C. § 200 et seq. All recipients are subject to the specific requirements governing the development, reporting, and disposition of rights to inventions and patents resulting from financial assistance awards located at 37 C.F.R. Part 401 and the standard patent rights clause located at 37 C.F.R. § 401.14.

32. SAFECOM
All recipients who receive federal financial assistance awards made under programs that provide emergency communication equipment and its related activities must comply with the SAFECOM Guidance for Emergency Communication Grants, including provisions on technical standards that ensure and enhance interoperable communications.

33. Terrorist Financing
All recipients must comply with Executive Order 13224 and U.S. law that prohibit transactions with, and the provisions of resources and support to, individuals and organizations associated with terrorism. Recipients are legally responsible to ensure compliance with the Order and laws.

34. Reporting of Matters Related to Recipient Integrity and Performance If the total value of the recipient’s currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all federal assistance offices exceeds $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of this federal financial assistance award, you must comply with the requirements set forth in the government-wide Award Term and Condition for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters located at 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix XII, the full text of which is incorporated here by reference in the award terms and conditions. 17 September 19, 2022 Item 07
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

35. USA Patriot Act of 2001
All recipients must comply with requirements of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act), which amends 18 U.S.C. §§ 175–175c.

36. Use of DHS Seal, Logo, and Flags
All recipients must obtain permission from their DHS Financial Assistance Office, prior to using the DHS seal(s), logos, crests or reproductions of flags or likenesses of DHS agency officials, including use of the United States Coast Guard seal, logo, crests or reproductions of flags or likenesses of Coast Guard officials.

37. Performance Goals
In addition to the Biannual Strategy Implementation Report submission requirements outlined in the Preparedness Grants Manual, subrecipients must demonstrate how the grant-funded project addresses the core capability gap associated with each project and identified in the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Analysis or Stakeholder Preparedness Review or sustains existing capabilities, as applicable. The capability gap reduction or capability sustainment must be addressed in the Project Description of the BSIR for each project.

38. Applicability of DHS Standard Terms and Conditions to Tribes The DHS Standard Terms and Conditions are a restatement of general requirements imposed upon recipients and flow down to subrecipients as a matter of law, regulation, or executive order. If the requirement does not apply to Indian tribes or there is a federal law or regulation exempting its application to Indian tribes, then the acceptance by Tribes of, or acquiescence to, DHS Standard Terms and Conditions does not change or alter its inapplicability to an Indian tribe. The execution of grant documents is not intended to change, alter, amend, or impose additional liability or responsibility upon the Tribe where it does not already exist. 18 September 19, 2022 Item 07
Standard Assurances
For Cal OES Federal Non-Disaster Grant Programs

IMPORTANT
The purpose of the assurance is to obtain federal and state financial assistance, including any and all federal and state grants, loans, reimbursement, contracts, etc. The Applicant recognizes and agrees that state financial assistance will be extended based on the representations made in this assurance. This assurance is binding on the Applicant, its successors, transferees, assignees, etc. Failure to comply with any of the above assurances may result in suspension, termination, or reduction of grant funds.

All appropriate documentation, as outlined above, must be maintained on file by the Applicant and available for Cal OES or public scrutiny upon request. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in suspension of payments under the grant or termination of the grant or both and the subrecipient may be ineligible for award of any future grants if the Cal OES determines that any of the following has occurred: (1) the recipient has made false certification, or (2) violates the certification by failing to carry out the requirements as noted above.

All of the language contained within this document must be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers. All recipients are bound by the Department of Homeland Security Standard Terms and Conditions 2021, Version 11.4, hereby incorporated by reference, which can be found at:
https://www.dhs.gov/publication/fy15-dhs-standard-terms-and-conditions.

The undersigned represents that he/she is authorized to enter into this agreement for and on behalf of the Applicant.

Subrecipient:

Signature of Authorized Agent:

Printed Name of Authorized Agent:

Title: Date:
19 September 19, 2022 Item 07
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Joe Bride, Public Works Director
Tom Romaine, Public Works Operations Manager
Kseniia Izgarskaia, Associate Management Analyst
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: September 19, 2022
SUBJECT: Acceptance of State Grant Funds for Del Mar Library Improvements REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Adopt the Resolution (Attachment A) accepting $14,300 in grant funds from the State of California, Building Forward Library Infrastructure Program for the Del Mar Library Improvements Project; 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary grant documents; and 3) Authorize the budget adjustments included in the Fiscal Impact section of the agenda report.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

The Del Mar Library property is owned by the City of Del Mar and operated by the County of San Diego through a lease agreement. Per the lease, the city is responsible for interior and exterior improvements and roof repairs. The current fire alarm system in the library was installed in the 1980s and is in critical need of an upgrade. In addition, the roof gutter needs replacement to provide better water drainage, which is essential for preventing structural damage to the building.

If approved, the Del Mar Library Improvements Project (Project) will replace and upgrade the Library’s current fire safety equipment, including the fire alarm system, smoke alarm and communication panel, install a new cell booster, and repair and replace the deteriorated roof gutter. The City solicited quotes for the Project from qualified vendors and received an estimate of $28,600 for the total Project cost.

Earlier this year, the City submitted a grant application for the Del Mar Library Improvements Project to the Building Forward Library Infrastructure Program through the State of California, which was created through The Budget Act of 2021 (SB 129) to assist local jurisdictions with various library improvements. The City recently received an Intent to Award letter from the State (Attachment B) regarding the City’s eligibility to receive $14,300 in grant funds, which covers 50% of the total project costs. If the Council adopts the Resolution (Attachment A) accepting the grant funds, the City will be required to provide a 50% local match toward the total project costs.
1 September 19, 2022 Item 08
City Council Agenda Report
Del Mar Library Improvements
September 19, 2022

The Project schedule has not yet been developed and will depend on the time needed to execute the grant documents with the State. The work is tentatively scheduled for December 2022 or January 2023 and will be completed within approximately two weeks. The work will not result in any interruptions to library services.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There are sufficient funds available in the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Operating and Capital Budget to cover the City’s required 50% local match of $14,300. Approval of this item will require a budget adjustment to the following accounts to reflect the grant funds from the State.

Table 1
Account Name Account Number Amount
State Grant Funds (Revenue) 40.4600.4621 $14,300
Major Facility Repairs (Expense) 40.7000.7010 $14,300
Net fiscal impact $0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The proposed City Council action does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it will not have a potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA. No further action under CEQA is required.

NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

The Del Mar Library Improvements Project is an operational facility maintenance item and is not related to the City Council Goals and Priorities.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Resolution Accepting Grant Funds
Attachment B – State of California Intent to Award Letter 2 September 19, 2022 Item 08
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL

MAR, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF

BUILDING FORWARD LIBRARY INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM

GRANT FUNDS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE

DEL MAR LIBRARY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Del Mar Library property is owned by the City of Del Mar and the library branch is operated by the County of San Diego, with the City being responsible for interior and exterior improvements and roof repairs; and WHEREAS, the current Library fire alarm system was installed in the 1980s and is in critical need of an upgrade; and
WHEREAS, the roof gutter is also in need of replacement to provide better water drainage which is essential for preventing structural damage to the building; and WHEREAS, the Del Mar Library Improvements Project will include a fire alarm system upgrade and roof gutter replacement which will enhance public safety through improved fire code compliance and structural building protection, which is estimated to cost $28,600; and
WHEREAS, the City applied for and has received a notice of eligibility for Building Forward Library Infrastructure Program grant funds totaling $14,300 through the State of California program intended to assist local jurisdiction with various library improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Program requires that if grant funds are awarded, the grant recipients must provide a 50% local match amount on a dollar-for-dollar basis; and WHEREAS, City Council action is required to accept the Building Forward Grant Program funds.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, does hereby:

1. Confirm that the City of Del Mar is a public agency under the laws of the State of California; and

2. Accept Building Forward Library Infrastructure Program grant funds in the amount of $14,300; and

3. Confirm that the City is committing to provide a 50% local match in the amount of $14,300 on a dollar-for-dollar basis; and

4. Confirm that the Project will be completed, and the funds will be expended in Fiscal Year 2022-2023; and
Attachment A
3 September 19, 2022 Item 08
Resolution No. 2022-XX

5. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Grant Agreement and other necessary documents.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at the Regular Meeting held this 19th day of September 2022. _____________________________
Dwight Worden, 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, SARAH KRIETOR, Acting City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2022- XX, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 19th day of September 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_________________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
4 September 19, 2022 Item 08
Library – Courts Building 916-323-9759
P.O. Box 942837 [email protected]
Sacramento, CA 94237-0001 www.library.ca.gov
September 12, 2022
Ashley Jones
City Manager
City of Del Mar
1050 Camino del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014

Re: Building Forward Grant Program
Jurisdiction: SAN DIEGO COUNTY LIBRARY
Library: Del Mar Public Library
Project: Del Mar Library Improvements
Dear Ashley Jones:

Congratulations! Following a rigorous review process, the California State Library is pleased to notify you of our intent to award a Building Forward grant for the project submitted for Del Mar Public Library.

Your grant award will be: $14,300
This award is intended to fund the following project outputs and related activities listed in your Supplementary Budget in accordance with allowable costs per the Grant Guidelines:

Security System - Fire Alarm Control Panel Replacement
Roof Gutter Replacement
Based on your Award amount and your Local Income Per Capita (LIPC) level, your organization is required to provide a matching amount of $14,300 to support this project. Please note: Match funds must be expended during the grant period and at the same rate as state grant funds. Neither grant funds nor match funds may be spent on unallowable costs, which includes work done outside of the grant period.

At this time, please acknowledge receipt of this Intent to Award as soon as possible, and no later than Friday, September 23, by email to [email protected].

Attachment B
5 September 19, 2022 Item 08
Building Forward Grant Program

Library – Courts Building 916-323-9759
P.O. Box 942837 [email protected]
Sacramento, CA 94237-0001 www.library.ca.gov
Your official Award Packet will be issued in the coming weeks after we have received your acknowledgement of this Intent to Award correspondence. The Packet will include the Award Letter confirming the award amount, project period, and required match amount (if applicable), as well as the Grant Agreement, a list of unallowable costs, and templates and guidance for submitting the following items, which are required for us to process your first payment:
• Confirmed Project Budget
• Final Project Implementation Plan
• Certification of Compliance
• Letter Certifying Availability of Match Funds (if applicable) • Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of the Grant
• Signed Grant Agreement
• Completed Fiscal Claim Form for the first award payment Please note: No payment will be made until the above items, free from errors, have been received by the State Library. Awardees may typically expect payment to be issued within 45 days from the date a grant payment request is properly submitted and approved by the Fiscal Analyst.

Hard copies of this correspondence will not follow. Please keep this Intent to Award correspondence as part of your official grant files. If you have any questions, please contact the Building Forward Team at [email protected].

The State Library looks forward to working to help you complete this project.

Respectfully,
Rebecca L. Wendt
California Deputy State Librarian
cc: Annly Roman
Reed Strege
6 September 19, 2022 Item 08
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: September 19, 2022
SUBJECT: Relocation of Baby Boomers Google Sculpture
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council approve the relocation of the Baby Boomers Google Sculpture from the art bench on the Camino del Mar sidewalk in front of the Del Mar Library to the cement planter on the west side of the library’s 13th Street entrance as shown in Attachment A.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

City Council adopted Policy 113- Public Art Policy (Attachment B) and established the Arts Advisory Committee on May 15, 2017. In December 2019, the City Council accepted the donation of the “Baby Boomers Google” and “Journey” sculptures from artist Maidy Morhous (Attachment C) and selected two locations to place the sculptures on stone art benches in the public right-of-way. The “Journey” art bench was placed on the sidewalk at 11th Street and Camino del Mar and the Baby Boomers Google art bench was placed on the Camino del Mar sidewalk in front of the Del Mar Library.

Unfortunately, the Baby Boomers Google Sculpture (Sculpture) has been damaged in its current location outside the library. Most recently the Sculpture tipped over and struck a private vehicle resulting in the City receiving a claim for damages. Due to these circumstances, the City needs to relocate the Sculpture to a location that is visible to the public but protects the Sculpture and City from future damages.

Per the City’s Public Art Policy and the donation agreement with the artist, the Sculpture may be moved at the discretion of the City. Because the City Council approved its original placement, staff is seeking Council approval for the Sculpture’s relocation. An encroachment permit is not required to relocate the Sculpture, which is City owned and is proposed to be relocated to a new location on City property.

Staff collaborated with Maidy Morhous (artist); Del Mar Library Branch Manager Polly Cipparrone; Del Mar Foundation President Betty Wheeler; and Arts Advisory Committee members Bonnie Grossman and Julie Maxey-Allison to discuss possible relocation options. 1 September 19, 2022 Item 09
City Council Agenda Report
Relocation of Baby Boomers Google Sculpture
September 19, 2022

Following a collaborative meeting, stakeholders and staff recommend the City Council approve the relocation of the Sculpture to the cement planter on the west side of the Del Mar Library’s side entrance off 13th Street as shown in Attachment A. This location is visible to the many library visitors and offers the artwork more protection than the prior location.

If the relocation is approved, staff will pour a cement base in the planter to support the Sculpture and will work with the artist to safely relocate to the artwork. Staff will also place a plaque in front of the artwork at its new location. The Sculpture will be centered in the planter and the City will evaluate options for landscaping the planter to compliment the Sculpture.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:

The City Council approved the placement of the Baby Boomer’s Google art bench on the sidewalk in front of the Del Mar Library on December 16, 2019.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact or action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item.

Sufficient funds are available in the FY 2022-23 Operating Budget to cover the cost of the relocation, which is estimated at approximately $400.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The proposed City Council action does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it will not have a potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA. No further action under CEQA is required.

NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This is an operational item and not specifically related to the identified Council goals and priorities for FY 2022-23.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Proposed Relocation
Attachment B – Public Art Policy
Attachment C – Acceptance of Donation of Art Agreement
2 September 19, 2022 Item 09
Attachment A
3 September 19, 2022 Item 09

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
113 PUBLIC ART POLICY
DATE REVISED: 5-15-2017
BY RESOLUTION: 2017-32
PAGES: 1 OF 12
SCOPE:

The original concept of public art in Del Mar included art on public property (i.e. City Hall, Camino del Mar, parks and greenspace), and regulation of public art on private property and as a part of private development. The proposed course of action is to start slowly – displaying art on public property, and thereby demonstrating success – and at a later time consider art in conjunction with private development.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

These proposed guidelines are based on the very thorough work of the Del Mar Village Association (DMVA) Art Committee who researched the art policies of other successful programs in the country.

PROCESS:

This policy is the byproduct of grassroots community interest. The following steps are critical to successful implementation:

1. Concept and draft proposed by DMVA and interested community members

2. Draft discussed and modified by the City Council Ad-Hoc Committee

3. Draft reviewed by key community stakeholders

4. Draft reviewed and approved by the City Council, and implemented by City staff and the Art Advisory Committee
I. PROGRAM INTENT
It is the intent of the City of Del Mar to create a Del Mar Public Art Program (hereinafter “the Program”) with guidelines specifically designed to promote the arts in public places in the Commercial Zones (including the Visitor, Central, North, and Beach Commercial Zones hereinafter Commercial Zones), Public Facility Zones (including the City Hall and Del Mar Shores properties) and public parks in Del Mar. It is intended that art will serve as cultural enrichment to the residents of the City and the community life along with enhancing the economic vitality of the City.

The Program seeks to ensure the highest quality of design where public art has a constant presence. The City wishes to advance Del Mar’s reputation as a unique community by expanding 4 September 19, 2022 Item 09

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
113 PUBLIC ART POLICY
DATE REVISED: 5-15-2017
BY RESOLUTION: 2017-32
PAGES: 2 OF 12
residents' appreciation of art, reflecting the City's aspiration to improve the quality of life, enhancing public spaces for all residents and visitors and becoming a city recognized for innovation and creativity. The Program works to integrate art and the ideas of artists into the development of public settings by collaborating with local and nationally known artists to include the values and history of our community into their work.

The Program will be implemented as a pilot program to last five (5) years from the date of adoption by City Council. The first two years will be focused on art donated to the City or purchased with donated funds. After the two year period, the Policy will be expanded to include pieces purchased by the City. At the end of the five-year pilot program, the City Council should evaluate the Program and determine if the program should be continued or expanded.

II. PROGRAM GOALS
The City of Del Mar aims to develop a Program that represents a wide range of artistic styles and disciplines through a process that encourages community dialogue and involvement. All of these actions will help identify Del Mar as a community committed to art and culture. The goals of the Program include:
 To acquire and commission quality and diverse works of art for community enrichment that is site specific and environmentally responsive. o Five works acquired in three years
 To support and involve artists in developing, collaborating and implementing Del Mar's public spaces and community development projects. o 80% of Del Mar artists rate involvement high or very high on survey  To encourage collaboration between artists and architects, landscape architects and civil engineers for public projects.
o 60% of Del Mar artists, architects and engineers see improvement in collaboration  To encourage an environment for artistic creativity in Del Mar and promote Del Mar as a leader in arts, culture and public art.
o 70% of visitors rate Del Mar high or very high as leader in arts, culture and public art.
 To increase awareness of Del Mar's art in public places as an integral component for attracting business and visitors to Del Mar.
o 80% of visitors aware of Del Mar’s Public Art Program 5 September 19, 2022 Item 09

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
113 PUBLIC ART POLICY
DATE REVISED: 5-15-2017
BY RESOLUTION: 2017-32
PAGES: 3 OF 12
III. ELIGIBLE FORMS OF PUBLIC ART
The City of Del Mar wishes to encourage the broadest interpretation of art and the diverse venues used by artists. Art may include all forms of original creations of visual art, which may be temporary as well as permanent. The media and materials eligible to be used by artists include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Sculpture: Free standing, wall supported or suspended; kinetic, electronic, etc., in any material or combination of durable materials.
 Murals or portable paintings: In any material or variety of materials, with or without collage or the addition of non-traditional materials and means.  Earthworks, fiber works, neon, glass, mosaics, photographs, prints, calligraphy, any combination of forms of media including sound film, holographic and video systems, hybrids of any media and new genres.
 Standardized fixtures such as gates, streetlights, etc., may be contracted to artists for unique or limited editions, provided the work is designed specifically for the city as public art.
 Architectural elements designed and executed by visual artists in collaboration with an architect or landscape architect; which may be incorporated into, upon or adjacent to publicly funded structures or projects such as streetscapes, walls, and other development efforts.
 Design elements incorporated into a Capital Improvement Project, designed by an artist for fabrication and execution by the project contractor.  Musical, sound and visual effects that highlight or accentuate a piece of art.

IV. INELIGIBLE FORMS OF PUBLIC ART
The following items are identified as ineligible for inclusion in the Program. (These items may be funded through other programs or departments within the city, but they do not fall within the parameters of public art):
 Directional elements such as super graphics, signage or color-coding except where these elements are integral parts of the original work of art.  “Art objects” which are mass-produced as a standard design such as playground equipment, fountains or statuary objects.

V. COMMUNITY STANDARDS
All artwork considered by the Art Committee for inclusion in the Program shall be reviewed in the context of the contemporary, community standards of the City of Del Mar. No art will be selected that is obscene as determined by the aforementioned standards in the sole discretion of 6 September 19, 2022 Item 09

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
113 PUBLIC ART POLICY
DATE REVISED: 5-15-2017
BY RESOLUTION: 2017-32
PAGES: 4 OF 12
the Art Committee and the City Council. Further, it shall be the policy of the City of Del Mar that once artwork is selected by the Art Committee (after an opportunity for the public to comment) and approved by the City Council (which is a further opportunity for the public to comment), said artwork will be displayed by the City of Del Mar for the time period set forth in an agreement with the artist. No artwork will be removed from display before expiration of the agreed time based upon its content. All art will be displayed pursuant to a written agreement between the City and the artist/owner. All such agreements will contain waivers from the artist of the artists rights under 17 U.S.C. 106A, 17 U.S.C. 113(d) and California Civil Code Section 987. None of the foregoing will apply if the City of Del Mar is the owner of the work of art.

The Art Committee shall use the following criteria for determining if a work of art complies with community standards:

1. Is the art work appropriate for the site at which it is intended to be displayed? a. Does the work fit with the architecture of the site? b. Does the theme of the art complement the character of the site and the City?

2. Is the art work secular in nature?
a. Does the work fit with religious diversity in the City? b. Does the work neither advance nor inhibit religion?
c. Does the work avoid excessive entanglement of the City in religious matters?

3. Does the art work fit with diversity of opinion within the City? a. Is the work inclusive of all citizens of the City?
b. Does the work allow differing viewpoints and opinions? c. Does the work promote a positive image of the community and its citizens?

4. Is the art work obscene?
a. Does the work avoid appealing to the prurient or sexual interest? b. Is this a work that is suitable for viewing by children? c. Would a large number of citizens find the work offensive because of sexual content or sexual suggestiveness?
All art submitted to the City for consideration for display on public property shall be initially evaluated by the Art Committee using the above criteria. If, in the sole discretion of the Art Committee, a work of art does not meet the initial criteria as set forth above, the work of art shall no longer be considered by the Art Committee. If any artist feels that the Art Committee has not appropriately applied the above criteria, the artist may seek review by the City Council.

Public art owned by the City is a form of government speech from the City to the public which is protected by the First Amendment.

The City of Del Mar has the right to monitor and govern such speech in its sole discretion. 7 September 19, 2022 Item 09

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
113 PUBLIC ART POLICY
DATE REVISED: 5-15-2017
BY RESOLUTION: 2017-32
PAGES: 5 OF 12
VI. ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The Art Advisory Committee (AAC) plays an integral role in the implementation of the Program. The AAC serves in an advisory capacity to City Council as the review body for all public arts projects. The AAC advises the City of Del Mar on matters pertaining to public art and acts as the selection committee for public art projects. The AAC may be convened by the City of Del Mar on a project-specific basis, or to serve on multiple public art projects.

1. The AAC is composed of seven (7) members appointed by the City Council. AAC members serve at the will of the City Council and may be removed from office by the City Council at any time, without cause.

2. The term of office for AAC members shall be for a three (3) year period commencing on the actual date of appointment and ending on June 30 of the 3rd year thereafter.

Members’ terms shall be staggered, so that annually, two (2) or three (3) of the seven (7) members are subject to reappointment.

3. The members of the AAC will be selected on the basis of each member’s specific expertise relating to public art.
a. Members shall be Del Mar residents, or individuals with a business located in one of the Del Mar Commercial Zones, and to whom one or more of the following apply:
i. Knowledgeable about contemporary art or related fields; ii. Willing to represent the local community’s interest in a public art project; iii. Willing to become familiar with the public art process; iv. Willing to be available for multiple or follow-up meetings if necessary. b. The ideal make-up of the AAC will be a balanced membership consisting of four (4) residents (preference given to those with art backgrounds/experience), one (1) business owner (preference given to art-related business), One (1) DMVA representative, one (1) Del Mar Foundation representative. c. Each member appointed to the AAC will be required to certify in writing that s/he has read the Public Art Policy and understands it.

4. The AAC shall appoint a chairperson and shall designate ex officio advisers to assist in the AAC functions without vote.

5. Non-voting ex-officio advisers may include:
a. A visual artist;
b. An architect or urban designer; and
c. An art professional such as a curator, fine arts collector, art critic or art educator.

6. The AAC will follow all guidelines for meetings specified in the Brown Act, including agendas, meeting notices, and public testimony.

7. The AAC shall not conduct any business unless a quorum is present. A quorum shall be a majority of the then-available seats on the AAC.

8. All selections and siting of public art approved by the AAC shall be subject to approval by the City Council.
8 September 19, 2022 Item 09

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
113 PUBLIC ART POLICY
DATE REVISED: 5-15-2017
BY RESOLUTION: 2017-32
PAGES: 6 OF 12
VII. REVIEW OF PUBLIC ART PROPOSALS
In general, acceptance and placement of art in Del Mar should be in accordance with these guidelines, current or historic use, community plans, and City Council goals. The location and design of the art should be consistent with the character and design intentions of the proposed site. The quality, scale and character of the art should be at a level commensurate with the particular setting.

The AAC may make requests for art proposals using the following methods:

1. Open Competition

2. Limited Invitation (a few artists)

3. Invitation (one artist)

4. Direct Purchase
All proposals for the display of public art on public property must be submitted to the AAC. The AAC shall consider the following criteria when reviewing art for permanent or temporary placement in the public spaces in Del Mar. The City Council shall utilize the same criteria when considering whether to accept or reject an AAC recommendation.  The artistic quality, uniqueness, style and nature, aesthetic and/or historical significance of the art.
 The art’s physical condition and whether the art is of exhibition quality.  Whether the City already owns sufficient examples or better examples of this type of art by a particular artist in a particular style.
 Whether the signage for art on public property conforms to the City of Del Mar plaque standards to include the artist's name, title and date of work, and where appropriate, a dedication. The name of the donor or lender may be part of the installation.  [Note: City of Del Mar Plaque Standards will need to be developed]  Whether sufficient funds are available for insurance and maintenance  Appropriateness of the site and location (working well within the scale and nature of the site).
 Whether there are any public safety or accessibility issues.  Whether the art is permanent or temporary.
 Whether the art is thematically appropriate for the context of the site. The AAC will review artwork for its context and artistic expression, and assess for local thematic significance, such as Del Mar history, natural environment (beach, lagoons, bluffs, canyons, Torrey Pines, etc.), and/or fairgrounds (horses, agriculture, etc.).  Whether the art is appropriate for the general public based upon contemporary community standards (in the case of obscenity) as determined at the sole discretion of the AAC and the City Council at the time of consideration pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section V above.
9 September 19, 2022 Item 09

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
113 PUBLIC ART POLICY
DATE REVISED: 5-15-2017
BY RESOLUTION: 2017-32
PAGES: 7 OF 12
During the review process, the AAC can request modifications to proposals before further consideration.

VIII. SITE SELECTION FOR PUBLIC ART
The AAC shall carefully consider all new proposals for public art as to the location where the art will be displayed. Sites may include areas within the Commercial Zones and public property.

Particular attention will be given to displaying art along the Camino Del Mar, Public Facilities (City Hall) and parks.

In addition to a location's aesthetic possibilities, the following factors shall be considered when deciding the site and placement or presentation of the art.  Lighting and visibility
 Public safety
 Future development plans for the area
 Landscape design
 Availability of utilities
 Existing art within the vicinity
 Environmental concerns/impact
 Public accessibility to the work
 Social/community context
 Significance to the proposed site
 Site appropriateness (fitting with the scale & nature of the proposed site)  Traffic patterns (interior and exterior)
 Relationship to existing planned architectural and natural features  Interior or exterior placement.
 Appropriateness of materials in relationship to the overall project. This includes consideration such as durability and resistance to vandalism.  Historical, environmental and cultural factors of the project area.  Environmental factors such as land forms, geographic features or predominate or preexisting structures or landmarks.

All sites selected for public art must be on public property and accessible to the public. The Parks & Recreation Committee may be engaged to provide recommendations for siting of artwork in City parks and greenspaces.

The City shall, where feasible and at the discretion of the City Council, include public art as part of Capital Improvement Projects funded by the City.
10 September 19, 2022 Item 09

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
113 PUBLIC ART POLICY
DATE REVISED: 5-15-2017
BY RESOLUTION: 2017-32
PAGES: 8 OF 12
IX. PERMANENT SITING OF PUBLIC ART
The City will use the following guidelines when acquiring public art:

1. Most public art is temporary. Whether the art work is installed at a site for 4 months, 4 years or 40 years, it is temporary. It can be moved or relocated by the City, based on the recommendations of the Art Advisory Committee and pursuant to agreement with the artist if the art is not owned by the City. Ownership of a temporary piece of art may or may not be retained by the City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, temporary works of art may be removed, pursuant to agreement with the artist, at the end of the agreed upon display time and pursuant to any other terms regarding removal in the agreement. The City will not remove works of art based on content after a work of art has been considered and selected for display by the Advisory Committee and the City Council.

Any work of art owned by the City may be moved, removed or decommissioned at the sole discretion of the City.

2. Art located on permanent structures such as buildings, walls and sidewalks will be owned by the City. The City reserves the right to remove the art piece if the permanent structure must be changed or demolished for public improvements.

X. MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC ART
Art located on public property shall become the responsibility of the City of Del Mar, except in cases of any separate agreements with loaned or temporary-exhibition artists. Unless otherwise specifically agreed upon in advance, the City shall provide all maintenance necessary to preserve the work in good condition.

The City will pay for lighting, cleaning and security of public art.

Stolen or vandalized art shall be replaced or repaired in a manner that conforms to the originally approved art. In the event of repair, the original artist(s) shall be notified and given the opportunity to perform the repair work.

The artist or sponsoring organization will pay for restoring the site to original condition when the artwork is removed.

Additional maintenance details will be specified in artist and/or donor agreements on a case by case basis.
11 September 19, 2022 Item 09

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
113 PUBLIC ART POLICY
DATE REVISED: 5-15-2017
BY RESOLUTION: 2017-32
PAGES: 9 OF 12
XI. REMOVAL OF PUBLIC ART
 The City Council, acting in accordance with City policies and procedures, can approve and implement the disposal/removal of a work of art from the City of Del Mar.  The City of Del Mar retains the right to convey art owned by the City to another site or to storage or for conservation. The City may also elect to remove the art from the inventory of the City collection by sale or other appropriate means, including discard. If the City decides to remove art from its inventory, then the procedures outlined in this section must be followed before removal can occur.
 Notwithstanding any other provision in the Program, if, in the judgment of a majority of the City Council an art piece is deemed to be detrimental to the public good due to a deteriorated condition, it may be removed immediately from public display.  Works of art on display by agreement with an artist/owner will be removed pursuant to the terms of such agreement or when the agreement terminates unless the display period is extended pursuant to agreement of the parties.

City staff will administer the removal of any art with a value of less than $1,500. City Council approval must be obtained for any work with a value of more than $1,500. City Council will consult with the AAC before deciding to approve a removal of public art. Art removal may be approved if the art meets at least one of the following criteria:

1. The City cannot properly maintain or store the art.

2. The art medium (e.g., prints, sculptures, multiples) is duplicative of works already in the collection.

3. The City identifies a work of art as a copy or imitation, a fake or forgery, without significant value.

4. The art requires restoration in gross excess of its aesthetic value or the art is in such a deteriorated state that restoration would be unfeasible.

5. The art has been on display for a period greater than outlined in the original artist or donor agreement, there is no new agreement for continuing display of the art, and the AAC recommends replacing it with a new piece of art.

In the event of a permanent removal from public view and subsequent to approval by City Council, City staff shall make every reasonable effort to locate the artist or donor/heir advising them in writing of the City's intention to permanently remove the art. Every effort shall be made to honor the wishes of the artist or donors/heirs concerning disposition of the art after its permanent removal. Written concurrence of the artist or donor/heir shall be solicited but not required for removal.
12 September 19, 2022 Item 09

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
113 PUBLIC ART POLICY
DATE REVISED: 5-15-2017
BY RESOLUTION: 2017-32
PAGES: 10 OF 12
The artist/donor shall be given the right of first refusal to reacquire the work at fair market value subject to approval by the City Council. The cost of removal of the work may be considered by the City Council in determining the fair market value of the work.

If the City sells a work of fine art, as that term is defined in California Civil Code Section 986, the City shall comply with the payment of royalties to the original artist pursuant to the terms set forth in California Civil Code Section 986 unless the artist waives the right to receive said royalty.

All revenue generated from art sales shall be deposited in the City of Del Mar Public Art Program Reserve Fund.

If authorization to remove a work of art is approved by the City Council, every attempt will be made to replace the original piece with art of comparable value. Said value will be determined through a "qualified appraisal" such as the Art Advisory Panel (used by the IRS) to substantiate the value or by the original building valuation, or approved budget for the prior art, plus an inflation factor for construction and material costs based on the Engineering News Record.

XII. FUNDING FOR PUBLIC ART
In order to sustain annual funding for the Program, the following mechanisms/options may be considered. A combination of funding options enables the City to coordinate a consistent and enriching Program. Reliable funding for art may be provided by using a variety of sources described below. The funds may be allocated to the City of Del Mar Public Art Program Reserve Fund (hereafter “Reserve Fund”) to cover short-term and long-term capital, operations, and maintenance costs.

1. General Fund Appropriation
Funds may be appropriated by the City Council during the budget process or at mid-year budget review. The AAC may recommend an annual budget allocation, however, final appropriation will be set by the City Council.

2. Sponsorships/Fundraising and Donations
Sponsorships, donations, and fundraising efforts are an integral aspect to public art throughout the world. These monies contributed for public art can be designated for a specific public art project location or pooled with other unrestricted contributions in the Reserve Fund to be allocated as determined by the City Council. Contributors can remain anonymous or be recognized appropriately depending upon the use of their donation for visual, music or the performing arts.

3. Consignment Art
13 September 19, 2022 Item 09

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
113 PUBLIC ART POLICY
DATE REVISED: 5-15-2017
BY RESOLUTION: 2017-32
PAGES: 11 OF 12
Another means to provide public art and funding for the Program is by consignment. This allows an artist to display their art for purchase at a public location. An agreement between the City and the artist, in accordance with this policy, will be negotiated to accommodate this arrangement, including installation, maintenance and removal/relocation after the art is sold or the designated time period has elapsed. A minimum display period of six (6) months is required with time extensions of up to two (2) years may be granted by the AAC. Additional public display time exceeding the two (2) year maximum must be approved by City Council.
a. Consignment Art must go through the AAC selection process, and would be offered for sale with a discrete sign.
b. Upon sale of the consignment art, the purchase transaction will be conducted by the City's Finance Department and a twenty five percent (25%) consignment fee will be withheld and placed in the Reserve Fund.
c. The remaining proceeds from the art sale will be sent to the artist by the Finance Department within 30 days after the sale transaction.

4. Public/Private Partnerships
Cooperation among the City, artists, nonprofit organizations, cultural organizations, other agencies, and the private sector is essential to ensure a healthy arts environment. The City's primary role is one of "assistance or exposure to" rather than "responsibility for" the provision of public art. With this in mind, it is recommended that collaboration with private or corporate sponsors/partners be encouraged for community benefit. These joint activities, temporary exhibitions, or more permanent public art, can/will include negotiated fees that will be placed in the Reserve Fund.

5. Grants
Grants and/or matching grants should be sought from national, state and local foundations, arts agencies and other organizations to promote and guarantee a thriving Program.

XIII. AUDITING OF PUBLIC ART FUNDS
The City requires annual audits of its finances. A report of the audit is prepared by the auditor each year. The City shall request that the auditor specifically address the Reserve Fund as part of the annual audit and include a section in the audit reporting on the Reserve Fund. The auditor’s report will be given to the Art Advisory Committee, the City Council and the public each year. 14 September 19, 2022 Item 09

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
113 PUBLIC ART POLICY
DATE REVISED: 5-15-2017
BY RESOLUTION: 2017-32
PAGES: 12 OF 12
XIV. CHILDREN’S ART
It is the intent of the City’s Program that children’s art be on display in our community at least one time per year.
15 September 19, 2022 Item 09
16 September 19, 2022 Item 09
17 September 19, 2022 Item 09
18 September 19, 2022 Item 09
19 September 19, 2022 Item 09
20 September 19, 2022 Item 09
21 September 19, 2022 Item 09
22 September 19, 2022 Item 09
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Joe Bride, Public Works Director
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: September 19, 2022
SUBJECT: Utility Undergrounding Project Update and Adoption of a Resolution Establishing the Tewa Court/10th Street Utility Underground District Overhead Facilities Removal Date
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive a Utility Undergrounding Project update; and 2) Conduct a public hearing to adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) establishing the Tewa Court/10th Street Underground District overhead facilities removal date of December 31, 2022, in accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section 23.54.030.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

Tewa Court/10th Street Utility Undergrounding District (UUD) On May 17, 2021, the City Council conducted a public hearing to form the Tewa Court/10th Street UUD to remove utility poles and replace overhead cables for electricity and telecommunications with underground lines. This project was identified as a priority by the City Council following approval of Measure Q by the Del Mar voters in 2016. The Tewa Court/10th Street project includes approximately 1,000 linear feet of overhead wiring, ten poles, and 21 parcels.

Following the public bid solicitation process in late 2021, the City awarded a construction contract to Blue Pacific Engineering Construction Inc. (Blue Pacific) on February 7, 2022. A Notice to Proceed was issued in May 2022. Additionally, completion of the project necessitated close coordination with the utility companies – San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), AT&T, and Charter Communications/Spectrum. The City entered into the necessary agreements with SDG&E and AT&T in order to proceed with the project.

To date, Blue Pacific has completed their contractual work, and undergrounding district residents have also completed their lateral conduits as required by DMMC Section 23.54.090. The next step is for the utility companies to complete the installation of their wires underground, which is expected to be completed within the next few weeks, and then proceed with removing the utility poles.

Pursuant to DMMC Section 23.54.030, a Council resolution is required to establish the date by which all overhead facilities, including utility poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures in the Undergrounding Utility District shall be removed. Staff recommends the date of December 31, 2022, as a feasible and reasonable date by which overhead facilities shall be removed.
1 September 19, 2022 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
Tewa Court/10th Street Overhead Facilities Removal Date September 19, 2022

The Tewa Court/10th Street is a small-scale Utility Undergrounding Project that was approved by the City Council with the intention of it being used as a pilot project to document lessons learned as an activity to inform and guide future undergrounding projects. As such, the project team has documented “Lessons Learned” throughout the design and construction phases of the project to adjust future project delivery plans and enhance efficiencies for subsequent undergrounding projects.

A notable positive outcome of the Tewa/10th Street project is that the project team was able to successfully work with SDG&E to expedite wire pull activities and ensure there was no delay with the other telecom companies involved with the project. As such, the team will continue with the same utility communication protocols on future projects in hopes of achieving the same results.

The team was also able to identify opportunities to increase efficiencies and reduce costs on future projects related to timing for execution of the construction contract; increase in construction related meeting frequencies and streamlining of construction storm water monitoring; minor modifications to elements of the City’s bid package and contract requirements; expanded advertising of bid package online; and modifications to easement agreements related to landscape installation and irrigation.

During City Council meetings regarding the Tewa/10th Street project in 2021, there was discussion among the Council about the level of engineering design the City should perform with regard to the Utility Undergrounding project, and whether or not the City needed to engage in the same level of resident communications and onsite construction management as would be the typical practice for other Capital Improvement Projects being undertaken by the City. While the Council majority did not express support for making substantial changes to the level of engineering design or other typical protocols and practices for management of City projects specific to the Undergrounding project, there was general feedback to staff to look for opportunities to reduce costs and streamline the project to achieve efficiencies where possible.

With the Council direction and feedback provided during briefings with the Council undergrounding project liaisons in mind, as well as using the Tewa/10th Street project as a true pilot project, the City’s project management team implemented some slight deviations from some of the City’s normal practices and protocols to see if these changes would result in reduced costs and greater efficiencies that could be duplicated as part of future projects without compromising the quality and delivery of the project to the public and undergrounding district residents.

However, the Tewa/10th Street project is unique from other City undergrounding projects in that Tewa/10th Street residents organized themselves and worked with SDG&E to design their undergrounding project prior to it being turned over to the City, therefore the residents were more informed and involved coming into the process than is expected to be the case on future City undergrounding projects.

The areas where the City made some slight changes to normal protocols and practices included the level of communications with residents, onsite field presence by the consultant’s construction manager, and level of detailed engineering design included in the bid package. As a result, we learned that the normal level of resident communication, onsite construction management, and comprehensive detailed engineering design is critical/essential to ensure residents are kept well informed and concerns can be addressed timely, maintain field protocols to ensure residents stay out of construction areas, and to reduce the risk of contractor damages to the City’s existing underground infrastructure. As a result, the City will implement our standard, or in some cases will enhance, project management practices in these areas for all future undergrounding projects. 2 September 19, 2022 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
Tewa Court/10th Street Overhead Facilities Removal Date September 19, 2022

UUD 1A - Stratford Court South and UUD X1A - Crest Canyon City Council designated 1A – Stratford Court South and X1A – Crest Canyon as UUDs on July 12, 2021. The projects are currently in the preliminary design phase. Once complete, the projects will progress into the environmental permitting phase. Staff anticipates 1A Stratford Court South UUD will qualify for a categorical exemption. X1A Crest Canyon is not likely to qualify for a categorical exemption because some of the pole removal activities for the project will occur in sensitive habitats. SDG&E and AT&T will remove the poles located in the sensitive habitat area, therefore staff worked with the companies to understand the pole removal methodology, which is currently under review by the project’s environmental consultant. 1A Stratford Court South UUD is anticipated to begin construction in the fall of 2023, while the anticipated construction start date of X1A – Crest Canyon UUD is to be determined, pending the completion of the environmental review work.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact or action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The proposed City Council action does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it will not have a potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA. No further action under CEQA is required.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:

On May 17, 2021, City Council adopted Resolution 2021-18, Designating a Certain Area of the City as a Utility Undergrounding District Subject to California Public Utilities Commission Rule 20 and in Accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code Section 23.54.030, Generally Described as Tewa Court/10th Street District.

On July 12, 2021, City Council adopted Resolution 2021-37, Designating a Certain Area of the City as a Utility Undergrounding District Subject to California Public Utilities Commission Rule 20 and in Accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code Section 23.54.030, Generally Described as between 4th and 12th Streets, west of Camino del Mar (UUD 1A – Stratford Court South).

On July 12, 2021, City Council Adopted Resolution 2021-36, Designating a Certain Area of the City as a Utility Undergrounding District Subject to California Public Utilities Commission Rule 20 and in Accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code Section 23.54.030, Generally Described as Residential Areas along Crest Road and in Canyon Below Crest Road within Areas West and North of the City of San Diego Border and South of the Lagoon along San Dieguito Drive (UUD X1A – Crest Canyon).

NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

The Utility Undergrounding Project is a City Council priority project.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A - Resolution 2022-XX Setting Date for Overhead Facilities Removal 3 September 19, 2022 Item 10
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE TEWA COURT/10TH STREET

UTILITY UNDERGROUND DISTRICT OVERHEAD FACILITIES

REMOVAL DATE
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2021, the City Council of the City of Del Mar adopted Resolution 2021-18 establishing Tewa Court/10th Street District as a designated and declared Underground Utility District of the City of Del Mar; and
WHEREAS, the Underground Utility District is in the general public interest and includes public benefits such as an improved pedestrian and bicycle environment, increasing foot traffic, reduced risk of fire or power outage from downed poles or lines, and improved aesthetics within the district; and
WHEREAS, the removal of all poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures, and the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication, and similar or associated service within the Underground Utility District is required in order to fulfill the goal of the Underground Utility District; and WHEREAS, the time within which property in said district must be ready to receive underground service and by which poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures shall be removed shall be set by subsequent resolution, pursuant to Section 23.54.030 of the Del Mar Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, a reasonable time shall be allowed for removal and underground installation, having due regard for the availability of labor, materials, and equipment necessary for such removal and for the installation of such underground facilities; and WHEREAS, the date and by which poles and other structures shall be removed shall signify that the district is fully formed, and at which time it will become unlawful to construct or maintain above-ground facilities beyond the date established by the City Council for removal of such facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar conducted analysis of the Underground Utility District work progress and identified December 31, 2022, as a feasible and reasonable date by which overhead facilities shall be removed.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, that:

1. The above recitals are true and correct.

2. December 31, 2022, is hereby established as the date by which the Underground Utility District is fully formed and by which all poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures, and the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication, and similar or associated service within the Underground Utility District shall be removed.

3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to notify all affected property owners as shown on the last equalized assessment rolls, and all affected utilities, of the adoption of this 4 September 19, 2022 Item 10
Resolution No. 2022-XX

Resolution within fifteen (15) days after the date of such adoption, and that that the work required to change the facilities on the premises so as to receive electric, communication, or community antenna television or similar or associated service provided or to be provided by the utility company shall be accomplished on or before the applicable date set forth in the Resolution, in accordance with Section 23.54.070 of the Del Mar Municipal Code. This notice shall also state the date all poles and related overhead structures are to be removed from within the district.

4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to record a certified copy of this Resolution with the office of the County Recorder, in accordance with Section 23.54.030 of the Del Mar Municipal Code.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, at a Regular Meeting held this 19th day of September 2022. _____________________________
Dwight Worden, 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, SARAH KRIETOR, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2022-XX, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 19th day of September, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
____ _____
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
5 September 19, 2022 Item 10
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Madeline Shute, Assistant Planner
Karen Brindley, Planning and Community Development Director Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: September 19, 2022
SUBJECT: Encroachment Permit EP22-067 – Request to Construct Fencing and an Entryway Structure within the Public Right-of-Way at 1128 Cuchara Drive (Applicant: Vladimir Novakovic)
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) denying Encroachment Permit EP22-067 based on the project’s non-compliance with the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) and City Council Policy 110 (Private Encroachments into City Rights-of-Way).

BACKGROUND:

On March 3, 2022, Code Enforcement Case No. 22-024 was opened due to the construction of a fence located in the right-of-way without an Encroachment Permit (EP).

To achieve dismissal of the code compliance case, the applicant removed the unauthorized fencing.

The property owner of 1128 Cuchara Drive, Vladimir Novakovic, has since filed a LongTerm Encroachment Permit Application requesting City Council approval to allow the fence and entryway structure within the public right-of-way. As shown in the plan set provided in Attachment B, the proposed fence and entryway structure encroaching into the public right-of-way would be located along Cuchara Drive. The proposed fence would be forty-two inches in height and constructed of black aluminum posts connected by horizontal stainless cable and a wood top rail. The proposed entryway structure would be approximately seven and a half feet in height and would consist of two vertical posts supporting an overhead trellis and gate.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

A long-term major encroachment permit, per DMMC Section 23.28.020, is defined as any improvement designed to or having a permanent appearance and intended for use for a period of 365 days or more and include, but are not limited to: structures or portions 1 September 19, 2022 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
EP22-067 (1128 Cuchara)
September 19, 2022

thereof, balconies, cornices and other architectural projections, awnings, below grade vaults, earth-retaining structures extending 12 inches or more in height above the adjacent grade, planter boxes, ramps, fences or walls, curbs extending 12 inches or more in height above the adjacent grade.

In addition to the findings listed below, DMMC Section 23.28.040 specifically identifies prohibited encroachments. Related to this request, DMMC Section 23.28.040(B)(3) states that any encroachment that would convey an impression or appearance that the encroached upon area is owned by or reserved solely for the private use of the adjacent property with no associated public benefit to the community is strictly prohibited. The location of the proposed fencing and entryway structure within the public right-of-way would convey the impression that the approximately 160 square-feet of public land enclosed by the fence and extending along the property’s street frontage is private and reserved solely for the private use of the residents at 1128 Cuchara Drive.

Required Findings:

Pursuant to DMMC Section 23.28.070, there are six (6) required findings for approval, which generally relate to public safety, intended use of the right-of-way, community character, aesthetics, and conversion of public land for private use. An EP shall only be approved if the City Council can make all of the following six findings:

Finding 1. That the issuance of the EP will not endanger public health, safety or welfare, or the surrounding property.

Finding 2. That the issuance of the EP will not unreasonably interfere with the intended use of a City Right-of-Way or Easement.

Finding 3. That the issuance of the EP will not have an adverse impact on the welfare of the community or on the community’s appearance or aesthetics.

Finding 4. That the issuance of the EP will not cause an unnecessary change in the character of the community.

Finding 5. That the issuance of the EP will not be to the detriment of the interests of the general public.

Finding 6. The proposed encroachment will convert significant area of public property to private use.

Staff has determined that the proposed encroachments would be consistent with findings 1-5 above. However, the proposed project would enclose approximately 160 square-feet of public property that extends along the property’s street frontage for private use and, therefore, finding #6 cannot be made.

Additionally, construction of the fencing and entryway structure would be inconsistent with City Council Policy 110, which states “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.” 2 September 19, 2022 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
EP22-067 (1128 Cuchara)
September 19, 2022

The applicant has not identified any public benefits that would result by allowing the proposed fence, entryway structure and walkway encroachments in the public right-ofway.

Given the proposed project’s non-compliance with the DMMC and City Council Policy 110, staff recommends that the EP application be denied.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact or action to be taken related to this agenda item as this is a private development proposal. All fees associated with entitlement processing and long-term maintenance are paid for by the Applicant.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

In accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council’s action to reject or disapprove a project is statutorily exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15270(a). Therefore, environmental review would not be required for the proposed encroachment permit.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Resolution Denying EP22-067
Attachment B – Plans
Attachment C – City Council Policy 110, Private Encroachments into City Rights-of-Way 3 September 19, 2022 Item 11

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL
MAR, CALIFORNIA, DENYING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT EP22-
067 REQUESTING CONSTRUCTION OF FENCING AND AN

ENTRYWAY STRUCTURE WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
ADJACENT TO 1128 CUCHARA DRIVE IN DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar (City) is the owner of the right-of-way adjacent to 1128 Cuchara Drive; and
WHEREAS, Vladimir Novakovic (Applicant) has filed an application for an Encroachment Permit (EP22-067) seeking approval to install fencing and an entryway structure within the public right-of-way adjacent to 1128 Cuchara Drive (Project); and WHEREAS, Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 23.28 requires an Encroachment Permit (EP) for any private improvements on City property, and specifically any improvements that would alter the intended use of public right-of-way, be approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, DMMC Section 23.28.070 provides that an Encroachment Permit may be approved or conditionally approved only if the decision maker makes all of the findings set forth in Section 23.28.070(C); and
WHEREAS, City Council Policy 110-Private Encroachments into City Rights-of-Way 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 public perception of a right-of-way area to one of being under private ownership and/or benefit rather than being a public space; and WHEREAS, in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council’s action to reject or disapprove a project is statutorily exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15270(a).

Therefore, environmental review would not be required; and WHEREAS, on September 19, 2022, the City Council of the City of Del Mar held a duly noticed public hearing to review the encroachment permit, 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;
b. Written information submitted with the application;
c. Staff Report, dated September 19, 2022, incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein; and
4 September 19, 2022 Item 11
Resolution 2022-XX

d. Additional information submitted during the hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar that Encroachment Permit EP22-067 is hereby denied based on the following findings in DMMC Section 23.28.070 (C):

1. DMMC Section 23.28.070(C) requires the City Council to make all six findings in this section, which include 23.28.070(C)(6), “The proposed Encroachment will convert significant area of public property to private use.” The proposed fencing and entryway will convert significant areas of public property to private use by enclosing approximately 160 square feet of public right-of-way that extends along the property’s street frontage. Additionally, the fencing and entryway would be inconsistent with City Council Policy 110 Private Encroachments into City Rightsof-Way, which states “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.” The applicant has not demonstrated any public benefit that would result from the placement of the proposed fencing/entryway along the property’s street frontage in the public right of way.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that EP22- 067 is denied.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held on the 19th day of September, 2022. ____________________________
Dwight Worden, Mayor
City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
5 September 19, 2022 Item 11
Resolution 2022-XX

ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CITY OF DEL MAR
I, SARAH KRIETOR, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2022-XX, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 19th day of September, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_________________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
6 September 19, 2022 Item 11
DRAWINGS:

SHEET #:

REVISIONS:

DATE:

NOTES:

TITLE SHEET, SITE
PLAN
T T
*
S
A E
LI
A *
CA
I

OF FORN
C-22131 L
R
E
* IN
HO
R
V
L
E
MAS
E
FA
K
R A
T
E
RC
T
T

I S GER
ECT
I H
D
T1.0
JOB #:
0006201768 CREST DRIVE, ENCINITAS CA, 92024 760-436-2642 [email protected] A DIVISION OF: FARRELL DESIGN ASSOC. INC.

ISLAND STYLE ARCHITECTS

NOVAKOVIC RESIDENCE
1128 CUCHARA DR DEL MAR, CA, 92014
5-5-2022
Kevin Farrell AIA
T.0 COVER SHEET / ELEVATIONS
A2.0 SITE LAYOUT PLAN/GATE ELEVATION

FF FINISHED FLOOR
SPOT

ELEVATION
NOTES:

SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON

ARE BASED ON AN ASSUMED
ELEVATION OF 100.00 FOR THE
FINISHED FLOOR OF THE HOUSE. X

SITE LEGEND

PROPERTY LINE

RESIDENCE - FIRST FLOOR
RESIDENCE - 2ND FLR WHERE
OCCURS

SETBACK LINES

RESIDENCE - ROOF OVERHANG
N.T.E. NOT TO EXCEED

LINE-TYPE LEGEND
1128 CUCHARA DR DEL MAR, CA, 92014

NOVAKOVIC RESIDENCE
PROJECT:

DOOR NUMBER
1 SECTION NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER
A
5 NAME

SECTION MARK
101

DETAIL MARK

DETAIL NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER

WINDOW NUMBER

ROOM DESIGNATION

A ACCESSORY

SHEET INDEX

INTERIOR ELEVATION
D1

CEILING
(+10'-0")

ELEVATION/SPOT DATUM
A6

CEILING/SURFACE

ELEVATION NOTATION

THIS SUBMITTAL
(50%)

VICINITY MAP
6 (27%)
NORTH
SITE LOCATION:

SITE ADDRESS
I-5
OCEAN
BEACH
CAMINO DEL MAR HWY 101

SITE ADDRESS
OWNER

ARCHITECT

ENGINEER ZABIH FOZI PE STRUCTURAL
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING INC.

ENCINITAS CA 92024
PHONE 858-756-8144
1128 CUCHARA DR
DEL MAR, CA, 92014

VLATAMIR NOVAKAVIC
325 8TH ST, DEL MAR, CA 92014
PHONE: 000-000-0000
CONTACT: OWNER
FARRELL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC.
1768 CREST DRIVE
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
PHONE 760-436-2642
[email protected]
CONTACT: KEVIN FARRELL AIA

SYMBOLS

LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUBMITTAL INFORMATION

PROJECT DATA

APPLICABLE CODES
USE

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

OCCUPANCY

CONSTRUCTION TYPE

TYPE VB
ZONING
R-1-10
R-3/U SINGLE FAMILY RES.

DIRECTORY

SPECIAL INSPECTIONS

AND CERTIFICATES REQUIRED

ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER (APN)
NAME SAN DIEGO CERTIFICATION I.C.B.O. CERTIFICATION

SPECIAL INSPECTOR FOR THIS PROJECT
CRC - 2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE
CBC - 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
CFC - 2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
CPC - 2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE
CMC - 2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE
CEC - 2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC CODE
2019 CALIF GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
2019 EXISTING BUILDING CODE
2019 CALIF ENERGY CODE

NONE REQUIRED

AREA INFO
TOTAL LOT AREA:

TOTAL NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACE:

TOTAL EXISTING HOUSE:

TOTAL EXISTING ADU CONDITIONED FLOOR AREA: 622 SQ.FT.
7,486 SQ.FT.
0 SQ.FT.

GROSS AND NET SQ FT THE SAME:

OVERLAY ZONE

DEL MAR
WHEN APPLICABLE:
"COMPLIANCE WITH THE DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2019 ENERGY EFFICENCY STANDARD IS NECESSARY FOR THIS PROJECT. REGISTERED, SIGNED, AND DATED COPIES OF THE APPROPRIATE CF1R, CFR2, AND CF3R FORMS SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT NECESSARY INTERVALS FOR BUILDING INSPECTOR REVIEW. FINAL COMPLETED FORMS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR THE BUILDING OWNER."

THIS SUBMITTAL IS FOR A DECK ABOVE GARAGE, SUPPORTING THE GUEST HOUSE OF THE MAIN HOME AND ADU. NO HABITABLE SPACE IS PART OF THIS SUBMITTAL. APPLICATION WILL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED AS "NOT INCLUDED".

SECTION R106.2.

TOTAL ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE: 3,743 SQ.FT.

TOTAL EXISTING LOT COVERAGE: 2072 SQ.FT.

GARAGE (BASEMENT)

SLAB FOOTPRINT
428 SQ.FT.

LOT COVERAGE

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
APN # 300-400-21
FAR= 2000 MAX :
1729 SQ.FT.

FIRST FLOOR COVERAGE EXISTING 1644 SQ.FT.

ENCROACHMENT PERMIT

FOR REPLACE OF OLD

FENCE AND ENTRY

GATE FROM CUCHARA

SCOPE OF WORK
THIS PERMIT IS FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE OLD FENCE (1947+/-) WITH NEW GREEN ARBOR FENCE AND WOOD GATE/TRELLIS. LANDSCAPE (LESS THAN 30") IN ROW.

GROSS AND NET ARE THE SAME
LANDSCAPE/ HARDSCAPE COVERAGE 4731 SQ.FT.
11TH STREET

CUCHARA ST

PROJECT IS NOT SPRINKLERED
FIRE
NEW DECK SURFACE AREA: 129 SQ.FT. TOTAL LOT COVERAGE HOME & ADU 2,694 SQ.FT.

NOTE: NO CHANGE TO LOT COVERAGE, DECK

SITS ABOVE EXISTING GARAGE
6-16-22
9-14-22
7 September 19, 2022 Item 11
DRAWINGS:

SHEET #:

REVISIONS:

DATE:

NOTES:

ARCHITECTURAL

SITE PLAN
T T
*
S
A E
LI
A *
CA
I

OF FORN
C-22131 L
R
E
* IN
HO
R
V
L
E
MAS
E
FA
K
R A
T
E
RC
T
T

I S GER
ECT
I H
D
A1.1
JOB #:
0006201768 CREST DRIVE, ENCINITAS CA, 92024 760-436-2642 [email protected] A DIVISION OF: FARRELL DESIGN ASSOC. INC.

ISLAND STYLE ARCHITECTS

NOVAKOVIC RESIDENCE
1128 CUCHARA DR DEL MAR, CA, 92014
5-5-2022
Kevin Farrell AIA

EXISTING GUEST RM
190'-7 3/16"
176'-3 3/8"
178'-6"
180'-8 3/8"
183'-2 3/8"
177'-7 3/16"
192'-2 3/8"
193'-3 5/8"
193'-2 3/8"
193'-8 3/8"
198'-6"
201'-4 13/16"
201'-2 5/8"
199'-6 5/8"
197'-3 5/8"
195'-9 5/8"
194'-2 3/8"
195'-3 1/8"
200'
198'-8 3/8"
197'-7 3/16"
198'-4 3/16"
194'-1 3/16"
198'-7 3/16"
198'-8 3/8"
186'-2 3/8"
187'-9 5/8"
189'-8 3/8"
190'-5"
189'-8 3/8"
193'-1 3/16"
189'
180'-2 3/8"
179'-8 3/8"
184'-4 13/16"
182'-4 13/16"
183'-2 3/8"
176'-5 15/16"
200'
198'-8 3/8"
198'-4 3/16"
194'-1 3/16"

4.478'

6.954'

14.387'
20'

4.318'

3.37'

3.012' 3.0'

3.059'

7.423' 2.5' MAX

ELEVENTH STREET
S 83o26' 02" E

45.00'
20' FRONT YARD

SETBACK

7.5' SIDE YARD

SETBACK

EXISTING

CONCRETE
DRIVE
N 17o25' 00" E
116.50'
S 07o41' 00" W

72.03'
R=75.00
A=73.50
△=56o 09' 17"
1128 CUCHARA DR

EXISTING RESIDENCE
BBQ

EXISTING DECK

EXISTING
DECK
EGRESS
6" BLOCK WALL

CAP FLUSH W/
DECK

CONCRETE

LANDING

LINE OF EXISTING

ROOF OVERHANG

SUPPORT WALL

OVER EXISTING

ROOF, SIDING TO

MATCH MAIN HOUSE
EXISTING CLASS "A"

SHINGLE ROOF

PARKING
TRASH
GATE
(N) PROPOSED

DECK OVER
GARAGE

EXISTING POOL

GAS METER

EXISTING

CMU WALLS

LANDSCAPE

POOL HEATER
(OPEN ABOVE)

EXISTING

GUEST RM

POOL EQUIPMENT

ENCLOSURE

PLANTER

EXISTING HARDSCAPE

EXISTING

EXISTING

LOCATION OF
ORIGINAL 4'-4" FT
FENCE BUILT 1947+/-
PL

WATER METER
/ BACKFLOW

FIRE HYDRANT

EXISTING WALKWAY

AND STEPS TO HOME

OPEN AIR TRELLIS

AT ENTRY GATE TO
BE 8.6' MAX HEIGHT
@ ORIGINAL FENCE
LOCATION.

NOTE: ALLOWABLE PER DEL
MAR MUNICIPAL CODE:

HIEGHT 10 FT, PROVIDE 8.6 FT
WIDTH 7 FT, PROVIDED 7.5 FT
DEPTH 5 FT, PROVIDED 2.5 FT

POSTS AND TRELLIS-WHITE

GATE- STAINED WOOD, WALNUT

FENCE POST- WOOD WALNUT

W/ STAINLESS CABLE RAIL FOR

GREEN VINE TO ATTACH

ADDRESS LETTERS-BLACK

22.336'

EXISTING ADU

EXISTING
4:12 ROOF

EXISTING HOME
N
4'-6"
2'-8"

8.5'
1 CUCHARA GATE
(REPLACEMENT)
3X4 TRELLIS
8X8 BEAM
8X8 COLUMNS
52" GREEN CABLE

PRIVACY ARBOR

ALONG SIDE GATE ON
@ ORIGINAL LOCATION

OF FENCE BUILT IN
1946 +/-

WHITE STRUCTURE

STAINED GATE (WALNUT)
& SIDE PANELS
SS CABLE @ 6" SPACING
(VINE TO GROW ON)

PLAN VIEW
1 1 2 8
6" CUT LETTERS
6-16-22

9.5' TOTAL HEIGHT
8-12-22
5'-10"
8'-0"
7'-6"
2'-6"
60% OPEN TRELLIS
PLAN VIEW: TOTAL SQ FT IS 18.75 SF
OPEN AREA IS 11 SF OR 60% +/- OPEN
FRONT ELEVATION:
84 SQ FT TOTAL

38.75 SQ FT STRUCTURE

45.75 SQ FT OPEN (GREATER THAN 50%)
SIDE ELEVATION:

23.75 SQ FT TOTAL

6.5 SQ FT STRUCTURE

17.25 SQ FT OPEN (GREATER THAN 50%)

SIDE VIEW

9.5' TOTAL HEIGHT
2'-6"
3x4
8x8
8x8
GATE
50% OPEN CALCULATIONS
9-14-22
1 3/32 scale
8 September 19, 2022 Item 11

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
110 PRIVATE ENCROACHMENTS INTO CITY RIGHTSOF-WAY
DATE ADOPTED: 10/19/15
BY RESOLUTION: 2015-67
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
9 September 19, 2022 Item 11

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
110 PRIVATE ENCROACHMENTS INTO CITY RIGHTSOF-WAY
DATE ADOPTED: 10/19/15
BY RESOLUTION: 2015-67
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.
10 September 19, 2022 Item 11
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Adriana Jaramishian, Associate Planner
Karen Brindley, Planning and Community Development Director Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: September 19, 2022
SUBJECT: Initial Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision on Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Application TVS21-002 TVS Applicant/Appellant: Michael and Angela Deftos
Applicant’s Address: 225 Torrey Pines Terrace
Tree Owners: Harvey and Sheryl White
Tree Owners Address: 473 Ocean View Avenue

REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council set the appeal for a de novo hearing.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On December 7, 2021, the Planning Commission (PC) reviewed two separate Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight (TSVS) applications (TVS21-002 and TVS21-003), filed by two different property owners, and conducted public hearings to determine whether five Torrey Pine (Pinus torreyana) trees located on the property at 473 Ocean View Avenue have grown to unreasonably obstruct pre-existing scenic views from the Primary Living Areas (PLA) of the Applicants’ residences, located at 225 and 237 Torrey Pines Terrace, respectively.

Application TVS21-002 was filed by Michael and Angela Deftos, and TVS21-003 was filed by Carly and Hal Michaels. Both TSVS applications were view obstruction claims pertaining to the same trees located at 473 Ocean View Avenue. The Planning Commission reviewed the application materials and available documentation of the preexisting views, which are southern and western oriented, blue water and horizon/sky of the Pacific Ocean and the Torrey Pines State Reserve, from the Applicants’ PLA (a site plan depicting the locations of the trees relative to the applicants’ homes has been included as Attachment A). The Planning Commission determined for each application (in a 4-0-1 vote, with Commissioner Countryman absent) that the tree growth constituted 1 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 City Council Agenda Report
Initial Consideration of Appeal of TVS21-002
September 19, 2022

an unreasonable obstruction of each Applicants’ primary scenic view, as observed within the last ten years. Specifically, the PC found that trees 1-3 unreasonably obstruct the Deftos’ view and trees 1-5 obstruct the Michaels’ scenic view.

After making the findings required pursuant to Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Sections

23.51.050.A and 23.51.050.B in support of a determination of unreasonable scenic view obstruction, the Planning Commission continued the two individual applications and appointed a subcommittee consisting of Commissioners Bakker and Farrell to work with staff regarding the development of an appropriate view restoration plan for recommendation to the full Commission. It was noted by the Commissioners that removal of a protected tree should be a last resort to restore the Applicants’ view and that view restoration and maintenance through careful trimming would be preferred, if possible.

The staff report from the December 7, 2021, Planning Commission meeting has been included as Attachment B.

The hearings to review the proposed view restoration plans for the applications was originally set for July 12, 2022. However, after the distribution of the staff report packet for the July 2022 Planning Commission hearings, the Tree Owner retained the consulting services of Adam Birnbaum and Certified Arborist Mark Wisniewski and requested a continuance to a future hearing date in order to have more time to reach a resolution that would be acceptable to both parties. The Commission granted the continuance to August 9, 2022. On August 9, 2022, the Commissioners reviewed three restoration plans submitted by certified arborists (Attachment C, described below) and the subcommittee recommendation, all of which included remedies for the scenic view loss from both 225 and 237 Torrey Pines Terrace.

The restoration plan submitted by the Applicant’s Certified Arborist Robert Walton recommended removal of tree #1 and “dropcrotch” crown reduction of trees 2-5 by no more than 20% in order to restore the views to an approximation of what existed approximately 8-9 years ago. This plan also provided an alternative option for tree #1, which would be to “dropcrotch” the upper canopy by 5 feet and thin the rest of the canopy by 50-60%; however, this would not provide the same view restoration as removal of tree #1.

The restoration plan provided by the Tree Owner’s former arborist Ted Safford disagreed with the proposals made by Robert Walton (Applicant’s Arborist) with regard to tree #1.

Mr. Safford did not recommend removal of tree #1, nor did he propose crown reduction of the trees found to obstruct the Deftos’ scenic view. Instead, Mr. Safford recommended thinning the branching structure of each tree an additional 10% to allow sight lines through the trees.

The subcommittee, having already produced a draft view restoration plan for the July PC meeting, recommended lacing and “dropcrotch” pruning to reduce the entire canopy of tree #1 by 40%, and doing the same for trees 2-5 to reduce each tree canopy by 20%. 2 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 City Council Agenda Report
Initial Consideration of Appeal of TVS21-002
September 19, 2022

Finally, a plan submitted by the Tree Owner’s current arborist Mark Wisniewski describes a series of distinct pruning events over a five-year period. Each pruning event listed in the plan limits the annual pruning of live material of each of the trees to 20%. There are two major pruning events listed in the plan, Winter (November-January) 2022-23 and Winter 2023-24, which would implement the subcommittee recommendation of a 40% reduction of the canopy of tree #1 and a 20% reduction of the rest of the trees.

Starting in the Winter of 2025-26, the Wisniewski plan implements maintenance trimming every two years. This would ultimately result in implementation of the subcommittee recommendation of a 40% reduction of tree #1 and a 20% reduction of tree #’s 2-5; however, it would take longer to complete than the subcommittee plan. Mr. Wisniewski proposed this reduction over two trimming cycles, as opposed to one, followed by a trimming plan for every two years in perpetuity. This approach would result in maintaining the long-term health of the trees and would be in accordance with the City’s Public Tree Policy Manual, which states that 25% trimming of any tree in a period less than one-year is excessive.

After deliberating on the various restorative action plans and taking into consideration all the testimony and evidence submitted at the hearings, the Planning Commission (3-1-1 with Commissioner McGreal in opposition and Vice Chair Countryman absent) adopted two separate resolutions, one for each TSVS application that included the tree trimming plan to be performed in accordance with the view restoration plan prepared by Mr.

Wisniewski dated August 2, 2022. Both resolutions included the same restorative action tree trimming plan, as the applications identified view impacts caused by the same trees.

The restorative action also included the tree trimming schedule and cost sharing allocation between the Applicants for TVS21-002 (Deftos) and the Applicants for TVS21- 003 (Michaels), since both applications applied to the same trees/Tree Owner. The final resolutions, PC2022-07 and PC2022-08, are included as Attachment D to this report.

THE APPEAL
On August 15, 2022, Michael and Angela Deftos (Applicant) filed an appeal with the City Clerk of the Planning Commission’s determination on applicationTVS21-002 (Attachment E – Appeal Request). The Michaels’ did not appeal the Planning Commission’s determination on their application (TVS21-003). The Deftos’ appeal provides information on which they contend their application should be heard as a de novo (or “new” hearing with the City Council). Below are the Applicants’ reasons for appeal with individual staff responses (shown in italics) to each of the appeal request items (shown in bold text):

Related to the TSVS applications and the appeal of TVS21-002, on August 12, 2022, staff was informed that a large branch from the eastern side of tree #1 of the subject applications had failed. Additional details and photographs related to the branch failure are provided below in the Tree Owner Response to Appeal (Attachment F), as the Tree 3 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 City Council Agenda Report
Initial Consideration of Appeal of TVS21-002
September 19, 2022

Owner’s arborist Mark Wisniewski conducted a site visit to observe and analyze the tree post failure.

Appeal Point 1: New Information is available that was not available at the time of the determination.

The Appellant contends the failure of a large limb of one of the subject trees (Tree #1), three days after the Planning Commission decision on restorative action affects the approved restoration plan in the final resolution.

Staff Response:

The limb failure is new information that was not available at the time of the determination for restorative action. In his report dated August 29, 2022, certified arborist Mark Wisniewski determined that the amount of live foliage on the failed branch comprised approximately 40% of total live foliage on the tree. A 40% reduction in the canopy of tree #1 was the trimming intent of the subcommittee recommendation for view restoration for tree #1 over a two-year period, which the limb failure appears to have accomplished.

However, the location of the branch failure on the tree does not appear to have restored the Applicant’s scenic view. The existing condition of the tree should be further evaluated in consideration with the restorative action plan approved by the Planning Commission.

Appeal Point 2: The decision to approve the determination for TVS21-002 is in conflict with the view restoration provision of DMMC Chapter 23.51.

The Appellant states the PC approved restorative action plan: will not “reasonably” restore their scenic views lost by tree growth; involves a 5-year restoration plan in conflict with the DMMC Section 23.51.110; and does not specify the manner in which the trees should be trimmed.

Staff Response:

The approved restorative action plan is consistent with the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC). According to DMMC 23.51.080.A.2, the work should be completed within 30 days of receiving the Applicant’s deposit or such other period of time as the Planning Commission may determine to be reasonable and appropriate. The Planning Commission has the authority to establish a trimming plan/schedule in order to restore the Applicants’ scenic view, which was included in Section 4 of PC Resolution 2022-07 Appeal Point 3: The decision to approve the determination for TVS21-002 is in conflict with City Policy.

The Appellant states the PC’s decision was made in conflict with the Planning Commission Policy Manual and direction given by the Commission on December 7, 2021, to form a subcommittee and return with a restorative action plan for consideration by the entire Planning Commission.
4 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 City Council Agenda Report
Initial Consideration of Appeal of TVS21-002
September 19, 2022

Staff Response:

While the subcommittee did come back with a recommendation for how to restore each of the Applicant’s views, the Tree Owner also provided a separate restorative action plan for the Planning Commission to consider instead of the subcommittee’s recommendation.

At the August 9, 2022 hearing, the Planning Commission motioned to adopt the resolution as drafted by staff with the substitution of the subcommittee recommendation with the Mark Wisniewski Restorative Action Plan dated August 2, 2022. This is reflected in Section 4 of Resolution 2022-07.

TREE OWNER RESPONSE TO APPEAL:

The Tree Owner submitted a response to the appeal (Attachment E). In summary, the Tree Owner states that the Appellant should not be granted a de novo hearing based on the grounds provided in the Appeal.

Also included in the Tree Owner’s response to the appeal are photos and a report from Mr. Wisniewski related to the health of tree #1 after the large limb failure. Mr. Wisniewski determined the health of tree #1 was compromised by the large limb failure. Mr.

Wisniewski also indicated no further trimming should occur on tree #1 during this trimming cycle since the tree has already lost 40% of its live foliage and a tree should be trimmed no more than 25% per trimming cycle.

CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission adopted a view restoration plan that is consistent with the DMMC and City Policy based on all the relevant information provided at the time of the August 9, 2022 hearing.

Since the August 9, 2022 hearing, new information and events have occurred that warrant a de novo hearing of this application. The intent of the original subcommittee recommendation and the view restoration plan prepared by Mark Wisniewski called for a 40% total reduction in the canopy of tree #1. The large limb failure has resulted in a 40% loss of live foliage from tree #1, and based on where the limb failure occurred on the tree, the scenic views from the Appellant primary living area have not been restored.

Due to the limb failure, Mr. Wisniewski does not believe the required 20% trimming of tree #1, per the approved restoration plan, should occur during this first year’s trimming cycle (November-January) in order to maintain the long-term health of the tree. However, this would be inconsistent with implementation of the approved restoration plan.

Based on all of the current facts in the record, and the events that have occurred after the Planning Commission rendered their decision, staff recommends the City Council set this application for a de novo hearing to determine appropriate actions for restoring the Applicants’ scenic views.
5 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 City Council Agenda Report
Initial Consideration of Appeal of TVS21-002
September 19, 2022

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City related to this agenda item as this is a private application. The Applicant/Appellant has paid all fees associated with the initial TSVS application and subsequent appeal.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Tree Location Map
Attachment B – December 7, 2021 Planning Commission Staff Report; TVS21-002 Attachment C – August 9, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report; TVS21-002 Attachment D – Final PC Resolution 2022-07
Attachment E – Appeal Request
Attachment F – Tree Owner Response to Appeal Request
6 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Exhibit D - Tree Location Map
225 Torrey
Pines Terrace
Appellants
473
Ocean View Avenue
Tree Owners
#1
#2 #3
#4 #5

AGENDA REPORT

ATTACHMENT A
7 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 City of Del Mar
Staff Report

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
December 7, 2021
APPLICATION: TVS21-002
APPLICANTS:

Name: Michael and Angela Deftos
Address: 225 Torrey Pines Terrace
Del Mar, CA 92014
APN#: 301-033-32
TREE OWNERS:

Name: Harvey and Sheryl White
Address: 473 Ocean View Avenue
Del Mar, CA 92014
APN #: 301-033-04

BACKGROUND
The Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight Ordinance (TSVS) is set forth in the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 23.51 (Exhibit A) and provides a process by which property owners may seek City action to restore scenic views and/or sunlight access lost as a result of tree/vegetation growth on another property. The TSVS process includes several required criteria and procedures that must be followed before a binding determination of the City can be rendered. The intent of the process is to encourage all possible efforts at a private resolution to the dispute prior to City involvement in the matter. However, if unable to resolve a scenic view or sunlight obstruction issue after making reasonable efforts, including attempting mediation, a property owner (or legal occupant with written permission of the property owner) may submit a request (application) to have the matter heard by the Planning Commission.

Submitted TSVS applications are subject to a two-step process by which applicants are required to first demonstrate they have a pre-existing scenic view from a primary living area that has been unreasonably obstructed by tree growth on another property and that the obstructed scenic view is eligible for restorative action. If the first step is satisfied per the code, the second step involves City action to determine the appropriate action to reasonably restore the prior scenic view and/or sunlight access that was lost and adopt the required restorative action by Resolution. TSVS applications are subject to Planning Commission approval and are appealable to the City Council.

TSVS Application:

On June 1, 2021, Michael and Angela Deftos (Applicants) filed a Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight application (TVS21-002, Exhibit B), asserting three (3) Torrey Pine (Pinus torreyana)

AGENDA REPORT

ATTACHMENT B
8 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12

PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT: TVS-21-002
December 7, 2021

trees located upon on the property at 473 Ocean View Avenue had grown to unreasonably obstruct pre-existing scenic views from the Primary Living Area (living room) of their residence located at 225 Torrey Pines Terrace. The Applicants’ residence is located on the south side of Torrey Pines Terrace, directly to the north of the Tree Owners’ property. With the TSVS application materials, the Applicants also submitted documentation that they suggested mediation with the Tree Owner prior to the filing of their application, however the tree owners declined the suggestion.

Supplemental materials submitted by the Deftos’ in support of their application in the weeks leading up the public hearing are also included within Exhibit B. The Applicants are proposing three options to restore that portion of their scenic view, described in more detail below.

The Tree Owners at 473 Ocean View Avenue were notified on August 5, 2021 of the filing of the TSVS application and that the application had been set for public hearing before the Planning Commission. In preparation for the Planning Commission hearing, the Tree Owners had a meeting with their arborist and submitted a report regarding the subject trees (Exhibit C).

ANALYSIS
As set forth in DMMC Section 23.51.030 (A), in order for an application to be eligible for review by the Planning Commission, the following eligibility criteria must be met and verified by City staff:

1. The subject tree(s) or vegetation are located is situated within 300 feet of the applicant’s property.

The subject trees are located just south and within 300 feet of the Applicants’ property, on the property of 473 Ocean View Avenue. The attached location map (Exhibit D) shows the location of the tree and defines a 300-foot radius from the Applicant’s home.

2. The applicant is seeking restoration of scenic views or sunlight that has been obstructed by tree(s) or vegetation since the time that the applicant purchased or occupied the residence or within the last ten years, whichever is the shorter time period;
The Applicants home was constructed in 1974, and has been occupied by the Deftos family since that time. However, the Applicants do not have clear photographic evidence documenting their view within the last 10 years. There are photographs submitted with the application from 1989 which clearly depict the view at that time, and there are Google “Street View” photographs from 2012. The applicant has zoomed-in the Street View photograph such that it attempts to show a view from the primary living area when looking through the home from a window on the north side of the structure. However those photos are not clear in resolution and, in staff’s observation, it is difficult to discern quality and extent of the Applicant’s actual scenic view. . 9 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12

PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT: TVS-21-002
December 7, 2021

Applicants’ Request
The Applicants’ residence is a two-story,single-unit home. As previously mentioned, the residence was constructed in 1974, so the establishment date for any scenic views observed and protected from the home’s primary living area in accordance with DMMC Chapter 23.51, would be from 2011 forward, as that is within the last 10 years of the application filing.

The Applicants’ TSVS application materials describe the proposed primary living area, observed scenic views, and provides a history of claimed scenic view loss (Exhibit B). In these application materials, the Applicants assert that the Primary Living Area (PLA) of the residence is the living room, which is located on the upper floor of the building, just inside the home’s entry. The Applicants also claim that “in addition to the living room, essentially the same view can be seen from most of the rooms of the upper floor of the house,” and that the progressive growth of the Torrey Pine trees identified earlier in this report is causing unreasonable view obstruction. The portion of scenic view for which the Applicant is seeking restoration is observed in a southern direction and is comprised of blue water and horizon/sky from the Pacific Ocean and from the Torrey Pines State Reserve.

Exhibit B of this report also includes materials provided by the Applicants to document their attempt to alternatively resolve the view obstruction conflict with the neighbors. According to the Applicants, there are three Torrey Pine trees causing the alleged view obstruction. A site plan was provided with the application materials to show the location of each tree on the Tree Owners’ property.

The Applicants have provided an arborist report, commissioned by them, which, contrary to professional opinion of the Tree Owner’s arborist, indicates that “crown reduction” trimming could be safely performed to lower the tree heights 8-10 feet. This report is also included in Exhibit B.

In addition to the above-mentioned information, the Applicants have proposed three (3) different options for view restoration, outlined here for Planning Commission consideration:

1. Establish a trimming plan for all three trees

2. Remove tree #1, and trim trees #2 and #3

3. Remove all three trees
The Applicants have reached out to neighbors in the vicinity with this proposal for three types of restoration plans. Of the nine (9) neighbors that were shown the proposal, eight (8) would be in support of any of the three proposed restoration plans.

Tree Owners’ Response
The Tree Owners’ property (473 Ocean View Avenue) includes a two-story main residence on an approximately 29,000 square-foot lot located in the Carmel Valley Precise Plan (CVPP). The CVPP was adopted in May 5, 1980 by City Council Ordinance No. 308. The purpose of the CVPP has been to guide development of approximately 15 acres of vacant hillside with unique bluff 10 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12

PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT: TVS-21-002
December 7, 2021

formations and native vegetation at the south end of town. Each lot within the CVPP has a designated buildable envelope including maximum height/elevation, landscape area, and open-space areas. The regulations for development of each lot are depicted within the Precise Plan. These development standards supersede the Zoning Ordinance requirements of the DMMC. Where the Precise Plan is silent on an issue, the DMMC Title 30 (Zoning Ordinance) would be applied. This lot is designated as “Lot #4” within the CVPP.

The subject trees are located on the north side of the lot and the residence, adjacent to the bluff side that separates the Tree Owners’ lot from the Applicants’ lot. According to City records, the home was constructed in approximately 2000-2001. At the time of DRB approval (DRB-98-14) and construction, the subject trees existed on the lot and per the DRB approval, were to be retained.

The retention of the Torrey Pines was included in a number of conditions of the home’s DRB approval. These conditions of approval called for specified building and foundation setbacks from the trees and the use of various tree preservation methods, most of which were identified in a report from the (then) City Arborist.

Upon receiving notification that the Applicants had submitted a TSVS application, the Tree Owners consulted their own arborist and requested a report regarding the status of the subject trees and whether further trimming could be done to restore the Applicants’ scenic view. That report, provided as Exhibit C, states that “to thin the branching structure more would be detrimental to the long-term health of the trees. These trees are susceptible to being infested by pine bark beetles which can kill these trees.” The report further stated that to further pruning was not recommended in order to maintain the health of the trees. The Tree Owners are not in support of removal of the subject trees, but are willing to work on a trimming restoration plan, which would restore the Applicants’ view.

Additional Correspondence:

As of the writing of this report, Planning Department has received nine (9) emails in support of the Applicants (Exhibit E).

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION- FINDINGS REQUIRED (STEP ONE) The decision-making procedure for TSVS applications is a two-step process. The first step is for the Planning Commission to establish whether the two findings required by DMMC Section 23.51.050 can be made. The two required findings are as follows:

1. DMMC Section 23.51.050 (A):

That the Applicant has contacted the Subject Tree owner and has made reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute as set forth in DMMC Subsection 23.51.040 (B). Proof of the Applicant’s effort shall include documented attempts (registered mail, etc.) to reach and confer with the Subject Tree owner, and documentation supporting efforts to mediate the dispute.
11 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12

PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT: TVS-21-002
December 7, 2021

The Applicants submitted evidence that they have been in contact with the Tree Owners multiple times in an attempt to resolve this dispute without City involvement, including proposing thirdparty mediation. Based on information submitted into the record by the applicants, the Planning and Community Development Director determined that the application has been “filed” in accordance with DMMC Section 23.51.040 (B), and pursuant to DMMC Subsection 23.51.040 (C), is now appropriately before the Planning Commission for consideration. Based on the information submitted, and the Planning Director determination, staff recommends that the abovecited finding can be made.

2. DMMC Section 23.51.050 (B):

That the Scenic View from or the Sunlight reaching the real property of the Applicant is unreasonably obstructed and the manner in which the Scenic View and/or Sunlight is obstructed.

In order for the Commission to make this finding, the following facts must first be established:
2a. The Planning Commission will first need to establish if the view blockage being claimed is indeed a “Scenic View” and if the PLA from which the view is observed is qualifies under the definition of “Primary Living Area.” As defined by DMMC Subsection 23.51.020 M., a “Scenic View” includes “a view of the ocean, lagoons, canyons, the community and its landscapes and urban forest character, or other scenic vistas, from the Primary Living Area of a residence”. A “Primary Living Area” is defined by DMMC Subsection23.51.020 J. as “that (single) portion of a residence from which a Scenic View is observed most often by the occupants and guests at the residence. The determination of Primary Living Area is to be made on a case-by case basis and shall be consistent with any prior determinations made by the City”. Staff is not aware of any prior determinations regarding the establishment of primary living area for 225 Torrey Pines Terrace.

As stated in the application materials for TVS21-002 (Exhibit B), the Applicants state “the primary living area of our house is the living room on the south side of the upper floor.” It is staff’s observation that this that while there are still some blue water/horizon views that are maintained from the primary living area, the majority of the scenic views from the primary living area would be beyond the Torrey Pine trees in the view.
2b. If the Planning Commission is able to make a determination that the obstructed view in question is a “Scenic View,” from the Primary Living Area of the residence, the Planning Commission must next establish if this view is being “unreasonably obstructed” by the trees located at 473 Ocean View Avenue using the criteria listed under DMMC Section 23.51.050 B (Exhibit A). This Code Section lists seventeen factors for the Commission to consider when determining if view obstruction from vegetation is “unreasonable.” While not all seventeen factors listed in the above-cited Code are necessarily applicable, staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the application with specific attention to the following factors and the staff comments provided:

1. The extent of alleged Scenic View obstruction, expressed as a percentage of the total Scenic View, and calculated by means of a surveyor’s transit or by photographs or both:
12 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12

PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT: TVS-21-002
December 7, 2021

Due to lack of documentable evidence from 2011 forward, it is difficult to discern the extent of the alleged view obstruction.

2. Documentable evidence that demonstrates the Scenic Views and/or Sunlight that existed at the time the Applicant purchased or began occupying a property, or in the last ten years, whichever is shorter;
As previously mentioned, the Applicants do not have clear documentable evidence that demonstrates the scenic view within the last 10 years, which is the shorter of the two criteria.

3. The quality of the pre-existing Scenic View(s) and/or Sunlight being obstructed; The applicants are seeking to preserve/restore a blue-water view of the Pacific Ocean and horizon, which is considered to be a high-quality view.

4. That the implementation of a Restorative Action will not create an unreasonable infringement of the Subject Tree owner’s privacy that could not be mitigated; It does not appear that the subject trees or any of the proposed restorative actions by the Applicants would create an unreasonable infringement on the Tree Owners’ privacy.

8. The variety of Subject Tree, its projected rate of growth and maintenance requirements;
Two arborist reports were provided, one by the Tree Owners and one by the Applicants.

As stated in the arborist report provided by the Tree Owners (Exhibit C), the density of the branching structure of subject trees was reduced by approximately 25% in February 2021.

The report also states that further trimming would cause harm to the trees and would subject them to infestation by bark beetles. However, the arborist report provided by the Applicants contradicts this statement and states further trimming could be done to restore the Applicants’ view, possibly lowering the height of the trees 8-10 feet.

9. The aesthetic quality of the Subject Tree, including but not limited to species characteristics, size, growth, form and vigor;
The subject trees appear to be in good health with no obvious structural defects.

10. The extent to which the location of the Subject Tree with respect to overall appearance, design, or use benefits the Subject Tree owner’s property; At the time of DRB approval and construction of the home, the subject trees existed on the lot and per the DRB approval, were to be retained. The trees’ importance is highlighted by the Design Review Board’s inclusion of specific building conditions to ensure the longterm health and existence of the trees. These conditions of approval called for specified building and foundation setbacks from the trees and the use of various tree preservation methods, most of which were identified in a report from the (then) City Arborist. While the trees do not appear to provide privacy to the property, they likely provide shade and cooling to the existing residence.
13 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12

PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT: TVS-21-002
December 7, 2021

12. The extent to which privacy (visual and auditory) and wind screening is provided by the Subject Tree to the owner and to neighbors;
The subject trees do not appear to provide substantial privacy or wind screening to the owner or neighbors. The Tree Owners’ residence is set down at a much lower elevation, and against a bluff side, than the Applicants’ property and is still very visible from the edges of the Applicants’ properties, regardless of tree height or location.

13. The extent to which energy conservation and/or climate control is provided by the Subject Tree;
The subject trees are part of a larger canopy of Torrey Pine trees that exist in the immediate vicinity. Their growth and existence contribute to of the overall intent of Goal 22 of the City’s Climate Action Plan, which is to increase the urban tree canopy of the City for the purpose of sequestering carbon dioxide and providing passive cooling for structures and paved surfaces.

14. The extent to which wildlife habitat is provided by the Subject Tree; Nesting birds or other wildlife have not been observed within the subject tree by staff.

15. Whether the Subject Tree is a “Protected Tree”, as defined herein and in Chapter

23.50 (Trees);
In accordance with DMMC Section 23.50.020 (E-1), the subject tree is defined as “protected” due to its species, and a Tree Removal Permit, issued pursuant to the standards of the Chapter, shall be obtained prior to removal or destruction of the tree. In accordance with DMMC Subsection 23.50.060 (C-7), the (Planning) Director “shall approve a Tree Removal Permit if the Protected Tree is deemed by the Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight Board to be unreasonably blocking a scenic view and/or sunlight of a neighboring residence and the Board has determined that removal of the tree is the only feasible method available for restoration of the affected scenic view and/or sunlight.” Administrative note:

Ordinance No. 780 adopted by the City Council in 2005 transferred the duties of the Trees, Scenic View, and Sunlight Board to the Planning Commission.

16. The value of the Subject Tree to the community/neighborhood; and Community-wide, Torrey Pine and Monterey Cypress trees are of particular significance to the City, thus causing them to be protected as discussed in the previous factor. However, this property is located in the Carmel Valley Precise Plan (CVPP), and Torrey Pine trees have even further value in this area of the City. For example each individual lot in the CVPP has a different maximum ridge height for the residence, beyond which no landscaping can exceed more than five feet, with the exception of Torrey Pine trees. That Torrey Pines are the exception to the building standards of the CVPP highlight the importance of these trees in this specific area of the community. The trees’ importance is even further highlighted by the Design Review Board’s inclusion of specific building conditions to ensure the long-term health and existence of the trees.

17. Whether the Subject Tree is located on public right-of-way or City-owned property.

The trees are located fully on private property.
14 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12

PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT: TVS-21-002
December 7, 2021

RESTORATIVE ACTION (STEP TWO)
If the Planning Commission is able to make the required two findings pursuant to DMMC

23.51.050, the Commission would then need to determine the appropriate action, pursuant to DMMC 23.51.070, to restore the Applicants’ view so it can be reasonably maintained as documented. As a part of this decision the Commission will need to make two decisions:

1. The type of restorative action pursuant to DMMC 23.51.070.B. (Exhibit A)

2. Any additional written conditions including if ongoing maintenance is required and the time schedule (for example annual, bi-annual trimmings).

In the past, the Planning Commission has often utilized a subcommittee of the Planning Commission to prepare a recommended restorative action plan for consideration by the entire Planning Commission at a subsequent public hearing. If this is the direction the Planning Commission chooses to take for this application, then the appropriate action would be to appoint a two-commissioner subcommittee following the vote on the above-cited findings, then continue the hearing to a future Planning Commission meeting. It would be staff’s recommendation in that case, due to the differing opinions submitted by the arborists involved, that the Commission direct staff to consult with the City’s contract Arborist to review the feasibility of safely performing crown reduction trimming to lower the canopy heights of the subject trees. Costs associated with the consultation with the City’s contract Arborist would be the responsibility of the Applicants.

It should be noted that only the restorative action would be discussed and acted on at the next meeting, as the determination of findings had already been made.

Once the Planning Commission has adopted a Resolution documenting its determination for restorative action, the entire action on the TSVS application is appealable to the City Council. The Applicants and Tree Owners would be subject to the procedures outlined in DMMC Subsection

23.51.080 for implementation of the final restorative action after the local appeal rights have been exhausted and the decision becomes effective.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission’s review include consideration of the written and photographic evidence submitted by both parties and the personal observations made while visiting the subject properties, in order to determine if the required findings can be made.

If the Planning Commission decides that the findings cannot be made pursuant to DMMC

23.51.050, then the Commission would need to make findings for denial of TVS21-002 for the record and no further action would be taken.

If the Planning Commission decides that both findings can be made pursuant to DMMC 23.51.050, then, as previously described, the Planning Commission should discuss what the appropriate 15 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12

PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT: TVS-21-002
December 7, 2021

restorative action may be and, if necessary, employ a subcommittee of the Commission to make a recommendation for action at a future public hearing.

Respectfully Submitted,
Adriana Jaramishian, Associate Planner
Exhibits
Exhibit A – DMMC Chapter 23.51
Exhibit B – TVS21-002 Application Materials
Exhibit C – Tree Owner Arborist Report
Exhibit D – Tree Location Exhibit
Exhibit E – Neighbor Letters of Support
16 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Exhibit A
17 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 18 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 19 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 20 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 21 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 22 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 23 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 24 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Exhibit B
25 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 26 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Describe the Primary Living Area of your residence. Describe the scenic view that is being obstructed and the specific tree/vegetation that is causing the obstruction.

The primary living area of our house is the living room on the south side of the upper floor. The primary scenic view is to the south and includes Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, Torrey Pines State Natural Reserve, Torrey Pines State Beach, La Jolla, and the Pacific Ocean. The view is seen over the rim of a canyon immediately to the south, in which Harvey and Sheryl White’s house sits (473 W Ocean View Ave). The Deftos house was built in 1974 and designed specifically to maximize this view. In addition to the living room, essentially the same view can be seen from most of the rooms of the upper floor of the house. When intact, this view contributed substantially to the economic value and aesthetic enjoyment of the house.

The primary view was preserved until approximately 2006 when a Torrey pine tree (tree #1) growing in the backyard of the White’s house first grew over the rim of the canyon. Starting in October, 2006, the late Linda Deftos made repeated written requests to the White’s requesting they trim the tree to restore and preserve the primary scenic view. These requests were largely dismissed. While the White’s have had this tree trimmed periodically, this was not done in such a way as to preserve the scenic view from the Deftos house. Instead, the lower branches have been selectively trimmed, leaving a dense canopy above the canyon rim formed by numerous small branches supporting dense foliage. This canopy nearly completely blocks the primary view from the Deftos house. This tree grows from the backyard of the White’s house and is not part of the primary scenic view from their house. Due to the way the lower branches have been selectively pruned, it also provides little to no privacy to their house. It grows in the canyon floor and does not appear to add significantly to erosion control. In addition to tree #1, over the last 10 years, two additional trees growing in the White’s east side yard (trees #2 and #3) have also grown over the canyon rim, further obstructing the view from the Deftos residence. Due to the growth of these trees and the way they have been maintained, the primary scenic view from the Deftos house is now essentially completely obstructed, we think unreasonably.
27 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Deftos house layout, with primary living area (living room) and direction of scenic view Primary view from Deftos residence, circa 1989
28 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Diagram illustrating White’s trees blocking view from Deftos residence (and Michael’s residence) Current primary view from living room (5/18/2021)
29 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 View from the Deftos residence (2021), with subject trees #1, 2 and 3 labeled Tree #1 in backyard of White’s house, as seen from Deftos backyard, with canopy above canyon rim
30 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Plat Map, with Deftos property (Red Circle, #32) and White property (Yellow Circle, #40) 31 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Explain the steps you have taken to resolve this matter with the tree/vegetation owner.

Please provide documentation of these actions. [Note: Early neighbor consultation and attempts to resolve the problem using Mediation Services are required prior to any consideration by the Planning Commission.]
We understand that the Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight Ordinance only allows us to seek restoration of our view going back ten years (to 2011). However, the Deftos family’s effort to resolve this issue with the Whites extends back to 2006. We believe the failure of these extended efforts illustrate that the Whites will not trim their trees to help restore our view without being compelled to do so. Though they have trimmed these trees on several occasions, the goal of such trimming has been to maintain the health of their trees, not to help restore and preserve our view.

Efforts prior to 2020 were pieced together based on written correspondence from Linda Deftos that Michael found after her death in July, 2019. Copies of these correspondences are included at the end of this application. It is possible there were other verbal or written correspondences.

On 10/29/2006 Linda Deftos mailed a letter to the Whites telling them that the Torrey pine tree in their backyard had grown since their house was built and was blocking her primary view and asked them to thin it to restore her view. On 11/26/2006 Harvey White visited our property and indicated that he could see the problem. On 4/18/2007 Harvey indicated that trimming would be done in the fall if his arborist indicated the tree would not be harmed. On 9/24/2007 Linda Deftos again wrote to Harvey asking him to have his tree trimmed. On 9/27/2007 Harvey responded by letter that his arborist indicated that the tree was not doing well, that it was not in the interest of the tree to be thinned at that point in time, and that it should be trimmed no more than 10% at a time. On 9/30/2007 Linda Deftos responded that she did not understand how a Torrey pines with a thick, dense, bushy crown could be in poor health. She also noted that an additional tree on the east of his property was starting to block her view of the lagoon. She requested the phone number of the arborist so she could have an explanation. She received no response to this request.

In November 2007, Linda Deftos developed a medical illness that resulted in prolonged hospitalization and subsequent residence with her son in the Bay Area for an extended period of time, derailing her efforts to have the White’s trim their tree. 32 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 In July 2011, Carly and Hal Michaels moved into the house at 237 Torrey Pines Terrace immediately to the north of the Deftos house. In December 2012, apparently in part due to a request from Michaels, the White’s trees were trimmed. However, the trees quickly grew back even denser, further blocking the view from the Deftos house.

On April 28, 2017 Linda wrote to the Whites and reminded them of the above sequence of correspondences and the lack of any action. She apparently received no response. On January 12, 2018 Linda re-sent the letter dated April 28, 2017, with an addendum reminding them of the view blockage and lack of response. On February 10, 2018 Harvey responded by letter that he had an arborist come by “last fall” and “felt that the trimming of the tree would be bad for it.” He also said he had another arborist come by and remove some dead branches and a branch from another tree on their roof and this arborist also did “not believe thinning is good at this time”.

In September 2018 Linda again developed a medical illness resulting in multiple hospitalizations, during which time she lived with her son in the Bay Area. In July 2019 Linda passed away due to complications of her medical illness, never having restored the view from her house that she had previously enjoyed since 1974.

Linda’s son, Michael Deftos, together with his wife, Angela, inherited the house through a trust following Linda’s death. Michael and Angela subsequently resumed efforts to have the Whites trim their trees. Prior to this, they confirmed with the City of Del Mar that they could file a TSVS application following his mother’s death (documented in screenshots of texts at end of this application).

During the following year, Michael and Angela engaged Harvey and Sheryl on multiple occasions, both in person and via email, requesting they trim their trees to restore their view.

Copies of the email correspondences between Michael and the White’s are included as text (for ease of reading) and screenshots (for documentation of validity) at the end of this application.

Michael first emailed Harvey and Sheryl White on May 25, 2020, requesting they trim their trees and sharing pictures taken from their property illustrating how the trees obstructed their view.

Harvey responded by email on June 1, 2020 indicating that they have two specialists taking care of their trees, one for bark beetle treatment and another who trims the trees, and that the tree trimmer had examined the trees in the spring and said “they would only need a little trimming.” Michael responded by email June 1, 2020 that he did not believe the “little trimming” would be sufficient to help restore the view. On June 2, 2020, Michael invited the White’s to come to their property to directly observe how their tree blocks their view. Harvey visited the 33 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Deftos property on June 10, 2020 and on June 14 emailed Michael and asserted that the house with the tree blocking the view was not his house and that he did not believe any of his trees impact our view. Michael responded by email to Harvey White on June 14, 2020 and informed him that the house in the canyon was indeed his house.

On June 17, 2020 Michael again invited Harvey to come to his property. Harvey came again to the Deftos property on June 19, 2020. He again initially asserted that the house in the canyon was not his, but eventually conceded that it was. He then walked Michael and Angela up the street to observe the view to the south as seen between two houses up the street, and he inexplicably argued that since the view from his house was the same as the view between these neighbor’s houses, his trees could not be blocking the Deftos view. Michael explained that this made absolutely no sense. Harvey finally agreed to talk to his arborist regarding trimming the trees.

On June 22, 2020 Harvey informed Michael via email that his arborist’s house was involved in a fire, that he was thus busy, but that he would come by as soon as he could.

Michael then contacted a certified Arborist, Mike Grande of Vista Tree Service, Inc. (Certified Arborist #WC812), to get his professional opinion. Mike visited the Deftos property on June 24, 2020 and on July 17, 2020 emailed Michael his professional opinion on how the White’s trees could be trimmed to help restore his view. Michael emailed Harvey the recommendation from Mike Grande on August 17, 2020.

On August 23, 2020 Harvey responded by email, reiterating that he has two arborists who “take care of the needs of our trees” and that one of them looked at the trees earlier in the year and said there was very little, if any, trimming needed. Harvey also indicated that he examined files from when his house was built and inexplicably asserted that his lot does not touch our lot in any meaningful way, if at all, and that a photo of his house I had previously shared with him was not his house. Both of these statements are patently false.

On Aug 30, 2020 Michael saw Harvey walking past his house and asked him to again come to his backyard so as to correct the repeated misstatements of facts about which house was his.

After some back and forth Harvey again agreed that the house in the canyon was his, that his trees did indeed block the view from our property, and that he would call his arborist.

On September 1, 2020, Michael contacted another arborist, Andy McCracken, to get an additional professional opinion. Andy indicated to Michael that he was one of the White’s arborists. He indicated that he only gave verbal recommendations and not written recommendations. Nevertheless, Michael invited Andy to come to his house so he could see how the White’s trees blocked his view, which he did on September 27, 2020. Michael and Angela discussed with Andy their wishes to have the trees trimmed specifically in a way that helped restore their view. Michael shared with Andy the recommendation from Mike Grande and Andy indicated it seemed reasonable.
34 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 On September 30, 2020 Michael emailed Harvey and indicated he had met with Andy, shared with him the trimming proposal from Mike Grande, which he thought was reasonable. Michael again expressed to Harvey his wish to have the trees trimmed in a way that would restore his view. On October 2, 2020, Sheryl White responded that they intended to have the trees trimmed in early 2021. Over several additional emails, Michael tried to get a date when the trees would be trimmed so they could be there, again emphasizing that they wanted the trimming to be substantial such that it would help restore their view. He also expressed that if this did not occur, he would go to the City of Del Mar for relief.

On Jan 27, 2021 Sherly and Michael spoke on the phone and Sheryl essentially indicated that the trimming would be done as needed for the trees, and would not take into consideration restoring the view. Michael acknowledged this in an email and proposed mediation, indicating he would understand her lack of response as a refusal to enter mediation, in which case he would go to the City of Del Mar for relief.

The Whites had their trees trimmed on February 9th and 10th, with little to no improvement of our view.

Before trimming (2020) After trimming (2021)
35 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 The Planning Commission will only consider applications regarding scenic views and/or sunlight access that existed at the time you purchased or occupied the subject property or in the last ten years, whichever is shorter. Please describe all (required) evidence you have submitted to document the date and extent of the unobstructed view or amount of sunlight reaching your Primary Living Area or solar energy system. Also, please provide evidence that documents the date of property purchase of occupation of the residence.

Unfortunately, the Deftos family were not avid photographers and we are currently unable to find pictures taken from our living room 10 years ago.

One documentation of the unobstructed view our house had 10 years ago are the following pictures taken from the back of our neighbors house at 237 Torrey Pines Terrace, taken in 2012 and 2020.

Current 2012
These pictures show subject trees #1 and #2 and demonstrate that they have grown an estimated approximately 15 feet during this 10-year interval, in concordance with the approximately 1-2 feet of growth per year of artificially irrigated Torrey pines trees.

In a letter Linda Deftos wrote to Harvey on April 28, 2017, she notes that “it will be the fourth summer that I will not be able to view fireworks at the Cove.” This implies that the Cove in La Jolla was visible from our house in July 2013.

In addition, this photo taken from 1998 shows how small the trees were when the White’s house was first built (story poles for their house visible).
36 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 This photo from year?
37 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Mike Grande opinion
38 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Email correspondences between Michael and the City of Del Mar. 39 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Texts of email Correspondences between Michael Deftos and Harvey and/or Sheryl White May 25, 2020
Michael to Harvey
Harvey and Sheryl White,
We are writing to open a discussion with you regarding trimming of the Torrey pines tree in your backyard. Our family owns the house above and directly north of you at 225 Torrey Pines Terrace. We know you had the trees trimmed several years ago to help restore our view. Thank you for that. Unfortunately, they have grown back even bushier and are now completely blocking our primary view of Torrey Pines State Park and Beach and La Jolla. Attached are three pictures to demonstrate this. The first was taken before your house was built. The second I believe was from several years ago. The third was taken recently. As you can see, our view is now completely blocked by the tree. So we are requesting that it be trimmed again to help restore our primary view. We would of course pay for the work.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Michael and Angela Deftos.
225 Torrey Pines Terrace. 415-202-3554
June 1, 2020
Harvey to Michael
#1
sorry I did answer nooner – thought I would be able to tell you when our tree trimmer will come to trim our Torre - s as he does every year.
#2
As I said earlier I meant to tell you that we include this my email earlier but I was racing off to a meeting so I am adding this now soi you know whati know about timing of his coming have talked to him twice recently and it is the “
#3
Sorry, as I said earlier I meant to answer sooner but I was racing to get to a meeting today – sand so my message was minimal. I think this email is part of having an “open discussion” and think it will remain an open discussion. Here is some of the info of what we do to take care of – and some of what and how we care of our Torreys. We value our Torrey Pines as does the city of Del Mar. We have two tree specialists who work with our trees each year to keep our Torrey Pines in their best health – one specialist, who has already done his treatment , that protects them from an insect attack that can kill a Torrey. The second specialist did come to look at our trees this spring. He said it looked to him that they would only need a little trimming.

As you may know this is a “busy Torrey pines trimming” season. I have talked with him a couple times this year and he assures me he and his team will come and trim our Torreys as he has done for the last dozen or so years.

Harvey
June 1, 2020
40 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Michael to Harvey
Harvey,
Thank you for responding to our email.

We were not aware you regularly have your Torrey pines trees trimmed. They have grown much more bushy and completely block the view we previously enjoyed from our house for decades. Before they are trimmed again, we would like to be able to give input so that the view from our home is restored as much as possible. We understand that the City of Del Mar values the Torrey pines trees. The City of Del Mar also values homeowners' views and protects these through the Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight Ordinance. We do not believe the "little trimming" you indicated in your email will be sufficient from our point of view and would like to discuss this further. Over the last several months, at the request of other neighbors, we have had several Torrey pines trees on our property trimmed to restore their views. We hope that you can extend to us the same courtesy. Thank you in advance for your consideration, Michael and Angela Deftos
June 2, 2020
Michael to Harvey
Harvey, in follow-up to our email last night:

We would like to invite you and your wife to our house (225 Torrey Pines Terrace) so you can see how your trees obstruct the primary view from our house. We are aware of COVID19 and do not want to expose you to ourselves. If there is no car in the driveway, we are not there and you can easily enter our backyard and go up to our back porch. The view from the porch is essentially the same as the view from our living room, dining room and kitchen. We think you will appreciate how the trees in your backyard blocks our primary view, which we previously enjoyed since 1974. This greatly diminishes our enjoyment of the house and the value of our property. Afterward, we think we can have a more informed discussion about the trimming of the trees. We hope you will take a look and see from our perspective.

Thank you again,
Michael and Angela Deftos
Michael to Harvey
June 11, 2020
Harvey,
Thank you for coming over to the backyard and deck of our house. I hope you see how the Torrey pines trees in your backyard block our primary view. It is my understanding that the City of Del Mar prohibits pruning of Torrey pines trees from March to October. With that in mind, we hope we can agree to a plan to prune the trees this coming winter to restore our view. If you would like to discuss this in person, we will be available this weekend and all of next week.

Please feel free to stop by. We will wear N95 masks for mutual Covid-19 protection. Otherwise, you can call us (415-202-3554) or respond by email. Thanks again for your consideration in this matter.

Michael and Angela Deftos
41 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 June 14, 2020
Harvey to Michael
Michael and Angela –
Haven’t been going up Torey Terrace with my dog for a week or so. but I have been in the back already yard several times. over time I have walked around number of yards on your back yard. i have stooped when there was a well kept lawn as I felt it was the neighbor’s yard. the last time I was thereI I was surprised to see a house with a large “canyon like space etween your property and it has a metal roof like ours. It faces on Ocean View and it is on the far side of our neighbor’s house that like ours, is on an easement off of Ocean View. I have pretty well walked over your entire back yard .I do not believe we have any trees, bushes or house that impacts your view south toward La Jolla. I saw a car (BMW) recently. As I think I said earlier I walk my dog every morning - we pass you house, if we go up Torrey Terrace typically, 7:30 or so – could be more like 8:30 if we do not go up Torrey Terrace. if you plan to be there this week I would be glad to tour your backyard with you. If so, would earlier or later be best for youl? Let me know - my phone is 619-890-8951.

Harvey
June 14, 2020
Michael to Harvey
Harvey,
Thanks again for coming to our backyard and taking a look. I believe your address is 473 Ocean View Ave. If that is the case, the house with the metal roof separated from our house by a canyon-like space is your house. The large Torrey pines tree in your backyard is the one blocking our view. If you look from the back windows of your house up at the cliff above and north of you, that is where our house is. The BMW in the driveway is my wife's. We are available Wednesday morning. Feel free to stop by Wednesday morning or any other morning after that.

Michael and Angela
June 17, 2020
Michael to Harvey
We are home at 225 Torrey Pines Terrace if the red pickup truck is in the driveway. Please come by at your convenience.

June 21, 2020
Michael to Harvey
Thank you for coming over to our property the other day. As agreed, we look forward to hearing from you on when your arborist is available to come by. Again, thank you.

Angela and Michael
June 22, 2020
Harvey to Michael
42 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 I talked the trimmer this week end – his house almost burnt done – he personally saved it – and that, with the busy season, has delayed his coming to see our tree – but he will come as soon as he can. Let you know when I hear from him. Best
June 22, 2020
Michael to Harvey
Ok. Thanks. Please keep us posted
Michael and Angela
July 6, 2020
Michael to Harvey
Wondering whether you have tried again to get your arborist to come by.

Michael and Angela
August 17, 2020
Michael to Harvey
Harvey and Sheryl,
You visited our property on 6/19/2020 to directly observe how your trees obstruct our view. At the conclusion of that visit you indicated that you would contact your arborist to get his opinion on how the trees could be trimmed. A couple days later you said due to personal reasons your arborist was unavailable. I emailed you asking for follow-up on 7/6/2020 but got no response.

You also spoke in person with Angela on 7/26/2020 and again indicated you would contact your arborist and get back to us. We have not heard back from you. We contacted a certified arborist who visited our property and evaluated your trees to determine how they could be trimmed to help restore our view. We attached the letter we received from him. He believes that crown reduction pruning can be performed on your trees to help restore our view. Please review the letter and let us know if you are willing to proceed with this plan this fall/winter when pruning of Torrey pines trees is permitted by the City of Del Mar. If you are agreeable, Angela will be in Del Mar sometime in September and she can discuss this will you. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Michael and Angela Deftos
August 23, 2020
Harvey to Michael
Angela and Michael
As I said to you earlier this year we have 2 Arborists and for many years will have talked to both of them about the needs of our trees and them coming to our property to examine and treat the trees as needed- at least twice this year as usual. One Arborist treats trees to keep to keep Bark Beetles from killing them. He did his first treatment, early this year, fortunately it was done in time to protect our trees from if it be killed if not treated. He said would, do his annual second treatment, which he did on August 12th. He also said August was very bad time to trim a tree as it can severely damage trees. He believes the only dates to treat for Bark Beetles are in April and August As for the second Arborist, he and his crew trims trees. They were at our 43 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 property and looked at our trees early this year. At that time he said there was no reason to trim our Torreys or other trees as there was not any trimming needed. He came and looked at the Torreys in June or July. He said there was very little, if any, trimming needed then, as is was not good for the trees and he felt that there was very little, if any, trimming needed now. He would check again in August which he did again saying trimming was not needed or good for the tress. He plans to look again in the first quarter of 2021. I apologize not responding earlier but I think it has been useful. I have the files from when we built our home some 20 years ago.

It seems to say your lot does not touch ours in any meaningful way, it at all. Also the the photo of a party in your house and another house you showed me Is not one of our home.

Harvey White
September 30, 2020
Michael to Harvey
Harvey and Sheryl,
While we were here in Del Mar we were able to meet with your arborist, Andy McCracken. We shared with him the trimming plan proposed by our arborist Mike Grande, which we previously shared with you (and which is also included as an attachment to this email). Andy said he generally agrees that it is a reasonable proposal. We would like to know if you plan on having your trees trimmed this fall or winter, and if so, whether you have scheduled this. Your trees are very healthy, so we hope you agree to do a significant trimming to help restore our view. Please let us know.

Michael and Angela
October 2, 2020
Sheryl to Michael
We have every intention of getting our trees trimmed again in early 2021.

October 2, 2020
Michael to Sheryl
Great. Please let us know when you have the trimming scheduled. We would like to be here then.

Jan 2, 2021
Michael to Sheryl
Sheryl and Harvey,
We hope the New Year finds you well. We would like to kindly remind you of your expressed intention to have your trees trimmed this winter. When do you think this will be scheduled? Thanks,
Michael and Angela
Jan 2, 2021
Sheryl to Michael
We are getting the trees trimmed this month
44 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Jan 2, 2021
Michael to Sheryl
Great. Can please you tell us the date?
Jan 27, 2021
Michael to Sheryl
Sheryl,
I did not hear back from you regarding when your trees would be trimmed this winter. I did just learn from Carly and Hal Michaels that you indicated your trees would be trimmed "in two weeks." Thank you for arranging to have your trees trimmed. We would like to know what day the trees will be trimmed so we have an opportunity to be there and give our input so that our view can be restored. Please understand that our families have been pursuing the issue of our view being blocked by your trees for many years and we would like a resolution. We sincerely hope that the trees will be substantially trimmed so that we can at least see through/over them.

If we are not able to resolve this issue between us we will have no other choice but to propose mediation and/or refer the issue to the City of Del Mar. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Michael and Angela Deftos
Jan 27, 2021
Sherly to Michael
Give me your number please so I can call you, these constant email threats are too much. I will call you and let you know what we are doing
Jan 27, 2021
Michael to Sheryl
My phone number is (415) 202-3554
Jan 27, 2021
Michael to Sheryl
In follow-up to our phone conversation just now, it is my understanding that you have no intention of trimming your trees with an objective of restoring our view. If you are open to mediation to try to resolve this issue, please let me know. Otherwise, if your trees are not trimmed to substantially restore our view this winter, we will refer the issue to the City of Del Mar.

Michael and Angela Deftos
March 24, 2021
Michael to Sheryl and Harvey
Sheryl and Harvey,
We have had a chance to see the effect on our view of the trimming you had done on your trees this February. As demonstrated by the before and after pictures below, the effect is negligible. 45 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Over the last approximately one year we respectfully asked you to have your trees trimmed in a way that helped restore our view. We invited you to our property to see how your trees blocked our view, sent you a trimming plan from a certified arborist that would achieve this goal, and asked you to inform us of when your arborist was going to trim your trees so we could give our input. Unfortunately, you have largely ignored these reasonable requests. In order to restore our view, which your trees have slowly taken from us over the years, we are left with no other choice but to ask the City of Del Mar to intervene.

Michael and Angela Deftos
March 24, 2021
Sheryl White to Michael Deftos
We spent $6,500 and it took two full days to cut our four trees. We look forward to going to the city of del Mar.
46 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 S
creenshotsofemailCorrespondencesbetweenMichaelDeftosandHarveyand/or SherylWhite
47 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 48 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 49 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 50 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 51 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 52 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 53 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 54 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 55 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 56 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 57 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 58 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 59 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Snail Mail Correspondences between Linda Deftos and the Whites 60 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 61 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 62 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 63 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 64 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 65 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 66 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 67 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 68 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 69 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Del Mar Planning Commission,
In our initial TSVS application we were not able to provide photographic evidence of our primary view as it existed 10 years ago. Instead, we relied upon indirect evidence consisting of statements taken from letters written to White’s, photographs of the subject trees taken from our neighbor’s house, and the usual growth rates of irrigated Torrey pine trees. The lack of photographs was largely due to the fact that 10 years ago we did not anticipate needing such photographs. Fortunately, we are now able to provide what we think is strong photographic evidence documenting the existence of our prior view using a fortuitous image from Google Street View. We would now like to amend our Trees, Scenic View, Sunlight application (TSVS20-003) with this photographic evidence. We believe comparison of this photograph with current photographs taken from the same perspective helps document the primary view we had 9.5 years ago, and that this view is now lost due to growth of the White’s trees. This also substantiates the veracity of the prior indirect evidence we provided.

The first photograph (below) is a screenshot of a publicly available Google Street View image dated March 2012. It was taken from the street directly in front of a window on the north side of our house (alcove window).

The time stamp in the box in the upper left hand corner.

Google Street View March 2012
70 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 The next two photographs (below) are blow ups of the same image focusing on the window on the north side of our house (alcove window). Through this window in the photograph one can fortuitously see a portion of the primary view from our house out a sliding glass door on the opposite side of the house. The lamp and railing of the deck serve as good references for point of view. In the furthest distance is the outline of La Jolla (red arrow in annotated picture to right) and in front of that is the outline of the bluff of Torrey Pines State Reserve (green arrow in annotated picture to right). At this point in time the crowns of the White’s Torrey pines tree (subject tree #1) is visible just above the railing of the deck (purple arrow in annotated picture to right).

Google Street View March 2012
Google Street View March 2012
71 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 The picture below is a current photo we took (on September 14th 2021) from the same approximate location as the Google Street View picture. It is very clear from this photo that this portion of our prior primary view is now completely blocked by growth of the White’s Torrey pine trees.

September 2021 (Current)
The picture below is a photo I also took on September 14th 2021 from just inside the alcove window and facing our primary view. This photo clearly documents that the view in the Google Street View image screen shot includes our primary view and that our primary view is now completely blocked by growth of the White’s Torrey pine trees.

September 2021 (Current)
72 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Thank you for taking this further evidence into consideration.

Michael and Angela Deftos
73 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 City of Del Mar Planning Department:

Please include this as an addendum to our TSVS application. The reason for this addendum is to draw attention to certain historical facts about the subject trees and other considerations that we respectfully think should be taken into consideration while evaluating of our application, specifically in relation to the community value of the subject trees (factor 16) and the status of Torrey Pine trees as protected trees (factor 15).

The subject trees of our application are Torrey Pine trees and are located in the area of the Carmel Valley Precise Plan. An email correspondence from staff in the Planning Department indicated that “it is staff’s position that Torrey Pine trees are of significant value and importance in the CVPP. This elevated value is demonstrated by the fact that they are the only tree species that is allowed to grow more than five feet taller than the highest roof of developed CVPP lots.”
We would like to address these factors and point out why we think they should not weigh against our application. First, it is important to understand the history of the trees in relation to the approval of building plans for the White’s house. The following history is gleaned from documents related to the Design Review Board and Planning Department approval of these plans.

The White’s house is built in a steep canyon in Lot 4 of the Carmel Valley Precise Plan. Prior to construction, there were four Torrey Pine trees in the canyon. A fifth had been cut down by another party and was present only as a stump and stacked firewood. One of these trees reportedly fell down in a storm sometime after construction and is not further discussed here. The proposed building plan placed the three other trees in close proximity to the house. The proximity of the trees, their size, their state of health, and the anticipated impact of the proposed house on the health of the trees was discussed at length in two arborist reports submitted to the Design Review Board (DRB 98-14, attached).

Tree #1 of our TSVS application corresponds to T.P. #2 in the arborist report. It was in good health, had a diameter at breast height (DBH) of +/- 24 inches (+/-75.4 inches in circumference), and was 9 feet from the exterior of the proposed building. This is slightly less than the minimum 10 feet from the exterior of the building indicated in the building diagram. The construction of the house including the necessary removal of branches and excavation was anticipated by the arborist to have a cumulative severe impact on the tree and to jeopardize its health and life.

Tree #2 of our TSVS application corresponds to T.P. #3 in the arborist report. It’s canopy had been severely topped and was in poor condition. It had a diameter at breast height (DBH) of +/-12 inches (+/-40.8 inches in circumference) and was 5-6 feet from the exterior of the proposed building. This is less 74 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 than the minimum 10 feet from the exterior of the building indicated in the building diagram. The construction of the house including the necessary removal of branches and excavation was anticipated by the arborist to have a cumulative moderately severe impact on the tree and to jeopardize its health and life.

Tree #3 of our TSVS application corresponds to T.P. #4 in the arborist report. It’s canopy was severely topped and was in poor condition. It had a diameter at breast height (DBH) of +/-12 inches (+/-40.8 inches in circumference) and was 5-6 feet from the exterior of the proposed building. This is less than the 8 feet 5 inches from the exterior of the building indicated in the building diagram. The construction of the house including the necessary removal of branches and excavation was anticipated by the arborist to have a cumulative moderately severe impact on the tree and to jeopardize its health and life.

The building plans for the house were first submitted by Michael Rosengarten and approved by the Design Review Board and City of Del Mar on 6/24/1998 and 10/26/1999, respectively. They were subsequently re-submitted by the Whites without changes and approved by the City of Del Mar on 6/17/2002.

Importantly, at the time the building plans were approved, chapter 23.50 (“Trees”) of the DMMC had been amended by Ordinance No. 683, which was passed and adopted on 4/7/1997. This amendment introduced exemptions to prohibitions against cutting down protected trees, including Torrey Pines trees.

One exemption was for trees located 12 feet or less from the exterior wall of a primary structure. For such trees, no permit was required to cut down, remove, or destroy a protected tree.

Based on the measurements of the distances from the trees to the exterior walls of the house as indicated in both the arborist report and building plans, all three subject trees of our TSVS application were less than 12 feet from the exterior walls of the White’s house when the house was built (Figure 1 and arborist reports in DRB 98-14). We believe this is true based on indirect measurements we have made of the distance of two of the trees (trees #1 and #2) to the house using photographs and reference distances from the building plans and direct measurements with a laser measurer (Figure 1).

If follows from the above that when the construction of the White’s house was complete, these Torrey Pines trees became exempt from protection against being cut down by the property owner under DMMC

23.50 since they were less than 12 feet from the exterior walls of the house. Moreover, the construction of the house was anticipated to severely impact the health of the trees. In effect, the interests of the City of Del Mar in preserving these Torrey Pine trees was subjugated to the interests of the Whites in constructing their house in close proximity to these trees. 75 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 We think the above information is relevant to our TSVS application for the following reasons:

1. It would be inequitable to weigh the community interest in the trees against our application when the community interest in the trees was previously subjugated to the interests of the White’s in building their house in close proximity to the trees.

To the extent that factor 16 and factor 15 are weighed against our applications, the community interest in these protected trees would have been previously subjugated to the interest of the Whites, but then used against our interest in preserving our scenic view. This would be an inequitable weighing of the community interest versus the interest of a private party.

2. The proximity of the house to the trees was anticipated to severely impact the health of the trees, and the poor health of the trees was then subsequently used by the Whites as a reason they could not maintain their trees in a way that would preserve our view.

By allowing the Whites to build their house so close to the trees, the City of Del Mar may have unintentionally facilitated a chain of events that contributed to the loss of our view. If their house was built farther away from the trees such that the health of the trees was not compromised, then the trees may have been maintained in a way that did not result in the obstruction of our view.

In addition to the above, we would like to make the following points in relation to the community interest in the trees:

3. The community interest in the trees in their current state is small or even negative.

Subject tree #1 in our TSVS application is surrounded by canyon walls and the White’s house. It is not visible or is only barely visible from community public property, and is only visible from a few houses, mostly from the Deftos and Michaels houses. In addition, this tree has been maintained in such a fashion that it has an unnatural and unaesthetic form, with a band of dense canopy at the top and a thicket of bare branches below. Therefore, there is little inherent value to the aesthetics of the community in this specific tree. Similar arguments apply to the other trees, which are also minimally visible from the remainder of the community and also have an unnatural form due to their prior topping.

The trees are also a fire hazard, including to the community. They severely overgrow the roof of the White’s house as is clearly demonstrated by satellite images (Figure 2). The White’s house is adjacent to a large open space, increasing its inherent fire hazard. Notably, DMMC 23.50.050 allows for removal of 76 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 protected trees if they are “Located within 30 feet of a Primary or Accessory Structure, when measured two feet above ground level, and the canopy of the tree cannot be reduced so as to: (i) Avoid overhanging the roof of a Primary or Accessory Structure; (ii) Be at least ten feet from the canopy of any other tree; and (iii) Be at least ten feet from the chimney of any residence.” The reason for this is that such trees are a fire hazard (see Residents Guide to the Del Mar Tree Ordinance, What is an acceptable reason to have a protected tree removed?: The tree qualifies as a fire hazard (in accordance with DMMC 23.50)).

The fact that the White’s trees have severely overgrown their roof and do not have 10 foot fire breaks between their canopies makes them a fire hazard, both to the Whites and to the community.

In addition, as these trees continue to grow, they will obstruct the views from other houses as well, further negatively impacting the community.

3. The “urban forest” in this neighborhood is unnaturally lush.

Finally, we would like to point out that there are numerous large Torrey Pine trees growing in this neighborhood of Del Mar. The “urban forest” is doing more than well here. Indeed, when our family first built our house in 1974, there were relatively few Torrey Pine trees in this neighborhood. Our family planted three Torrey Pine trees on our property when it was first built and these have grown into large, mature, aesthetically pleasing trees, making a significant contribution to the “urban forest.” The growth of the “urban forest” since we built our house can be clearly appreciated by comparing its current state to its state in 1974 (Figure 3). The current density of Torrey Pine trees does not reflect the area's natural state. It imposes a considerable fuel burden, increasing the risk from fires. It decreases the scenic views of many neighbors, reducing property values.

In summary, we believe that weighing the community value of the subject trees against our application would be inequitable, that the location of the White’s house so close to the trees may have contributed to the loss of our view, that the trees have little or even negative value to the community, and that the “urban forest” of this neighborhood is more than healthy. Based on these reasons, we do not believe factor #16 or #15 should weigh against approval of our TSVS application.

Thank you for considering these issues,
Michael and Angela Deftos
77 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Figure 1.

Distance of subject trees to house per building plan, distances correlated between building plans and picture (red), and direct measurement with laser measurer (green).

A. Subject Tree #1:

B. Subject Tree #2:
78 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 C. Subject Tree #3
Figure 2.

Satellite picture of White’s house with canopy from subject trees #1, #2 and #3 overgrowing roof and lacking fire breaks
79 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Figure 3.
“Urban forest” of neighborhood 1974 vs 2021
80 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 81 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 82 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Planning Commission,
Please include this document as addendum #3 to the Deftos TSVS application and an addendum to the Michaels TSVS application. The purpose of this addendum is to make the following points, which we think are relevant to factors #16 (“value to community/neighborhood”) and #15 (“status as protected trees”):

1. The subject trees of our TSVS application are not visible or only minimally visible from public property in Del Mar (relevant to factors #16 “value to community/neighborhood”).

Figures 1A-D below show various pictures taken from the public streets that surround the subject trees:

Torrey Pines Terrace, W. Ocean Ave, Carmel Valley Road and Highway 101. The red arrows in the corresponding diagrams show the location and direction of the pictures and the green ovals represent the subject trees. The red ovals in the pictures show the approximate location of subject trees hidden by houses and other features. These photographs demonstrate the subject trees are not visible or only minimally visible from public property in Del Mar. We believe this greatly diminishes the value of the subject trees to the neighborhood and community.

2. Numerous residents in the neighborhood find no value or negative value in the subject trees and are supportive of a view restoration action plan (relevant to factors #16 “value to community/neighborhood”).

To date, a total of nine neighbors have written emails in support of our TSVS applications. These have been previously forwarded to the planning department. A map shows the location of these neighbors' houses relative to the subject trees (Figure 2A). The emails are compiled below for convenience and ease of reference (Figure 2B). These neighbors explicitly or implicitly indicate that they do not believe the subject trees add value to the neighborhood. They all support a restoration plan with the vast majority having no opposition to removal of all three three subject trees, and several favoring this as the preferred course of action. Including the Deftos’ and Michaels’ applicants, this makes for a total of eleven households from the neighborhood who support a view restoration plan. We believe this further greatly diminishes the value of the subject trees to the neighborhood.

3. A recent building development in the immediate neighborhood involved removal of six or seven large, mature Torrey pines trees (relevant to factor #15 “status as protected trees”).

A large, roughly 5,500 sq ft house was recently built down the street from us at 340 Ocean View Ave.

Development of the property involved removal of six or seven large, mature Torrey pine trees that were easily visible from public property (Figure 3). This was allowed by the CIty of Del Mar under the Tree Ordinance (DMMC 23.50), which allows for removal of protected Torrey pine trees that are obstructing proposed developments. This indicates that the interests of home builders and developers in Del Mar can outweigh the interest of the City in protecting Torrey pine trees. We think the interests of long-term residents in maintaining and/or restoring their primary scenic views can also likewise outweigh the interest of the City in protecting Torrey pine trees, and we think that is true in our cases.

Michael and Angela Deftos
Carly and Hal Michaels
83 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Figure 1A. The subject trees are not visible from Torrey Pines Terrace 84 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 85 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Figure 1B. The subject trees are not visible from W. Ocean Ave 86 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Figure 1C. The subject trees are not visible from Carmel Valley Road 87 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Figure 1D. Subject trees are not visible from bridge on Highway 101 and very inconspicuous from Torrey Pines Pines State Beach (both outside city limits) 88 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Figure 2A. Map of support from neighborhood:

Yellow: Support view restoration plan
Orange: Tree owners
Green: Subject trees
89 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Figure 2B. Emails in support of TSVS applications from neighbors:
90 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 91 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 92 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 93 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 94 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Figure 3. Development at 340 Ocean View Ave:

November 2015
April 2018
95 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 4320 Vallejo Avenue • San Diego, CA 92117 • (858) 272-1566 • (858) 270-7001 fax ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————— A DIVISION OF CERTIFIED ARBORCARE • www.tedsaffordarborist.com • CONTRACTOR LIC. #923924 September 26, 2021
Harvey & Sheryl White
473 Ocean View Avenue
Del Mar, CA 92014
Dear Mr. & Mrs. White,
This report follows the meeting I had with you on September 13, 2021 concerning the further pruning of your Torrey pines in order to enhance the view of your neighbors above. These neighbors are Michael & Angela Deftos at 225 Torrey Pines Terrace, and Carly & Hal Michaels at 237 Torrey pines Terrace.

My crew pruned four of your mature Torrey pines in February of this year. The pruning involved thinning -also called lacing- the branching structure and pruning out the dead wood. We probably reduced the density of the branching structure of each of the trees by 25%. To thin the branching structure more would be
detrimental to the long-term health of the trees. These trees are susceptible to being infested by pine bark beetles which can kill these trees. As we enter another period of drought, the population of these beetles increases and more pine trees die.

To prune these trees more is strongly contraindicated at this time.

More pruning now would compromise the health of the trees and make them more susceptible to invasion by these deadly pine bark beetles.

Exhibit C
976 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 It is important to water these trees every month or so during the summer months to discourage bark beetle infestation and nurture the health of these iconic trees. Using upmarket soaker hose like the brand Netafim is recommended for watering these trees Sincerely,
Ted Safford
Certified Arborist ISA #WE912
987 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Exhibit D - Tree Location Map
225 Torrey
Pines Terrace
Applicants
473 Ocean View Avenue
Tree Owners
998 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 From: deftos <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 3:00 PM
To: Adriana Jaramishian; Carolyn Michaels
Subject: Fwd: Heyman/Daigle review of proposed plans
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Adriana,

Please include the following email chain in the Deftos' and Michaels' TSVS applications. It includes an email in support of our TSVS applications from our neighbors Anne Daigle and Rich Heyman who live up the street from us at 264 Torrey Pines Terrace.

They gave us permission to forward this email to you.

Thanks,
Michael and Angela Deftos
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Anne Daigle <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 2:39 PM
Subject: Heyman/Daigle review of proposed plans
To: michael deftos <[email protected]>
Dear Michael,
We have thoroughly reviewed the proposed plans in person from various angles; from our home, at street level on Torrey Pines Ter, from Ocean View, and from Torrey Pines Point (below your home).

The trees are barely seen from these various angle by the “community”. These tree have almost negligible value to the community and they do not enhance the aesthetic beauty of the area for the community. These trees are seen primarily from the yards abutting the trees. And in another sense, the definition “community” must also include neighbor harmony and balanced views. There is a Del Mar ordinance addressing primary views and these clearly have been allowed to grow to violate this view ordinance. Moreover, if these trees continue to grow unabated and with no sensitivity to neighbors primary ocean views (“the community”), they will block a portion of the primary view of at least three other homes on Torrey Pines Terrace. We can now see the top of the canopy and the canopy blocks about 5% of our primary ocean view. We also request that a fire assessment be conducted concerning these trees as they are Exhibit E
100 99 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 very close to the home in a canyon-like area and thus by default a potential risk to other homes and our community.

With regards to the proposed restoration plans:
• We are in favor of all options (options 1, 2 and 3).
• None of them would negatively effect the community or beauty to the area (as they can't be seen).
• All of these plans would have a favorable impact on our property, especially over time.

We would be happy to provide a letter in support of your proposed plans or you may use this email for incorporation into a submission.

Please let me know if you need any clarification or additional details.

Sincerely,
Anne Daigle
264 Torrey Pines Terrace
1010 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 From: deftos <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 2:46 PM
To: Adriana Jaramishian; Carolyn Michaels
Subject: Fwd: Trees
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Adriana,
Please include the following email chain in the Deftos' and Michaels' TSVS applications. It includes an email in support of our TSVS applications from our neighbors Linda and Eric Daniels who live up the street from us at 279 Torrey Pines Terrace.

Their email response to our inquiry to them is:

We fully support the Deftos and Michaels view restoration plan. While not quite as devastating to our view as to theirs, we have lost a significant amount of our ocean view due to the overgrown, untrimmed trees described in the Deftos complaint.

In order of preference, we would support Plan #3, #2, and #1 in that order. As a longtime resident of this area, previous view impingements have been handled in a neighborly manner. Such has not been the case here. Hopefully, the council will see fit to rectify this unfortunate situation.

They gave us permission to forward this email to you.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Deftos <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: Trees
To: Linda Daniels <[email protected]>
Thanks again
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 12, 2021, at 1:17 PM, Linda Daniels <[email protected]> wrote:

Sorry that I omitted permisson to share with the City of Del Mar. Permission granted.

Linda and Eric Daniels
1021 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 On Friday, November 12, 2021, 09:38:07 AM PST, Michael Deftos <[email protected]> wrote:

Do we have your permission to forward or otherwise share your email with the City of Del Mar?
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 12, 2021, at 9:24 AM, Linda Daniels <[email protected]> wrote:

You are welcome.

On Thursday, November 11, 2021, 05:45:58 PM PST, Carolyn Michaels <[email protected]> wrote:

THANK YOU FOR THE SUPPORT!
-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Daniels <[email protected]>
To: deftos <[email protected]>
Cc: Carolyn Michaels <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Nov 11, 2021 11:40 am
Subject: Re: Trees
Dear Michael and Carly,
We fully support the Deftos and Michaels view restoration plan. While not quite as devastating to our view as to theirs, we have lost a significant amount of our ocean view due to the overgrown, untrimmed trees described in the Deftos complaint.

In order of preference, we would support Plan #3, #2, and #1 in that order. As a longtime resident of this area, previous view impingements have been handled in a neighborly manner. Such has not been the case here. Hopefully, the council will see fit to rectify this unfortunate situation.

Thank you,
Linda and Eric Daniels
On Thursday, November 11, 2021, 06:10:52 AM PST, deftos <[email protected]> wrote:

Linda,
1032 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Thank you for your time the other day. This email follows up on our conversation. Briefly, both the Deftos and Michaels families have lost the majority of our scenic views due to three Torrey Pines trees growing in the back and side yard of the Whites house, which is located in a narrow canyon south and southwest of our houses. These trees nearly completely block our primary scenic views, which we previously enjoyed for over 40 years and 10 years, respectively. Included are pictures demonstrating this. Please feel free to come to our houses to observe. For the Deftos’ house, you are welcome to walk in the backyard when we are not there and see for yourself. The view from our back deck is essentially the same as from our entire upper floor. We also included a diagram with the trees that demonstrates how these trees block the views from our houses.

Both our families have applied to the City of Del Mar seeking restoration of our views under the Trees, Scenic View and Sunlight Ordinance. The public hearing for this is now set for December 7th. If the City determines that our views have been unreasonably obstructed, the next step would be to come up with a view restoration plan. This could range from a trimming plan to complete removal of the trees. If any of the trees were to be removed, they could be replaced with small Torrey Pine trees further away from the house that could be better maintained going forward so that they do not block neighbors' views. For subject tree #1, due to the way the tree has been maintained such that the canopy is restricted to a narrow band at the top that blocks our view, removal may be necessary to meaningfully restore our view.

We imagine that such a plan could take one of the following: View Restoration Plan 1: A trimming plan involving trees #1, #2 and #3. View Restoration Plan 2: Removal of tree #1 and trimming of trees #2 and #3. View Restoration Plan 3: Removal of trees #1, #2 and #3.

One factor the City of Del Mar takes into consideration in this process is the value of the tree to the community. This is apparently elevated by the trees being Torrey Pines trees and within the area of the Carmel Valley Precise Plan. It is our opinion that these trees have little aesthetic value to the community since they are largely surrounded by the canyon walls and the White's house and are generally not visible from most of the neighborhood streets or neighborhood properties. They are visible from your house and may become increasingly visible if they continue to grow. We would like to know if you would be supportive of, neutral to, or in opposition to any of the above view restoration plans? Do you think implementation of any of these view restoration plans would negatively impact the community? Do 1043 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 you think implementation of any of these view restoration plans would negatively impact your property?

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Please feel free to add any information or comment as you see fit.

Please let us know if you are okay with us forwarding your response to the City of Del Mar.

Thank you,
Michael and Angela Deftos
Carly and Hal Michaels

Deftos house prior view
1054 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Deftos house current view
Michaels house prior view
1065 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Michaels house current view
1076 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 1087 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 1 Adriana Jaramishian
From: deftos <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 6:51 PM
To: Adriana Jaramishian; Carolyn Michaels
Subject: Fwd: Trees
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Here is one more email in support of our application
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Rita Klibanov <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: Trees
To: deftos <[email protected]>
Alex and Rita Klibanov
209 Torrey Pines terrace
Alex and I have reviewed the proposed plans and fully support them ( 1,2 or 3) Sent from my iPad
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 6:18 AM deftos <[email protected]> wrote:

Rita and Alex,

Thank you for your time the other day. This email follows up on our conversation. Briefly, both the Deftos and Michaels families have lost the majority of our scenic views due to three Torrey Pines trees growing in the back and side yard of the Whites house, which is located in a narrow canyon south and southwest of our houses. These trees nearly completely block our primary scenic views, which we previously enjoyed for over 40 years and 10 years, respectively. Included are pictures demonstrating this. Please feel free to come to our houses to observe. For the Deftos’ house, you are welcome to walk in the backyard when we are not there and see for yourself. The view from our back deck is essentially the same as from our entire upper floor. We also included a diagram with the trees that demonstrates how these trees block the views from our houses.

Both our families have applied to the City of Del Mar seeking restoration of our views under the Trees, Scenic View and Sunlight Ordinance. The public hearing for this is now set for December 7th. If the City determines that our views have been unreasonably obstructed, the next step would be to come up with a view restoration plan. This could range from a trimming plan to complete removal of the trees. If any of the trees were to be removed, they could be replaced with small Torrey Pine trees further away from the house that could be better maintained going forward so that they do not block neighbors' views. For subject tree #1, due to the way the tree has been maintained such that the canopy is restricted to a narrow band at the top that blocks our view, removal may be necessary to meaningfully restore our view.

1098 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 2 We imagine that such a plan could take one of the following: View Restoration Plan 1: A trimming plan involving trees #1, #2 and #3. View Restoration Plan 2: Removal of tree #1 and trimming of trees #2 and #3. View Restoration Plan 3: Removal of trees #1, #2 and #3.

One factor the City of Del Mar takes into consideration in this process is the value of the tree to the community. This is apparently elevated by the trees being Torrey Pines trees and within the area of the Carmel Valley Precise Plan. It is our opinion that these trees have little aesthetic value to the community since they are largely surrounded by the canyon walls and the White's house and are generally not visible from most of the neighborhood streets or neighborhood properties. They minimally visible from your house but may become increasingly visible if they continue to grow. We would like to know if you would be supportive of, neutral to, or in opposition to any of the above view restoration plans? Do you think implementation of any of these view restoration plans would negatively impact the community? Do you think implementation of any of these view restoration plans would negatively impact your property?

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Please feel free to add any information or comment as you see fit.

Please let us know if you are okay with us forwarding your response to the City of Del Mar.

Thank you,
Michael and Angela Deftos
Carly and Hal Michaels

Deftos house prior view
Deftos house current view
Michaels house prior view
Michaels house current view
11009 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 1 Adriana Jaramishian
From: deftos <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 8:53 PM
To: Adriana Jaramishian; Carolyn Michaels
Subject: Fwd: Trees
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Adriana,
Please include the following email in the Deftos' and Michaels' TSVS applications. It includes an email in support of our TSVS applications from our neighbors Edna and Daniel Maneval, who live across the street from us at 238 Torrey Pines Terrace.

Michael and Angela Deftos
Carly and Hal Michaels
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Edna Chow Maneval <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: Trees
To: deftos <[email protected]>, Carolyn Michaels <[email protected]> Cc: Daniel Maneval <[email protected]>
Michael, Angela,Carly, and Hal,
We are supportive of your proposed restoration plans and see no negative impact to our neighborhood or our property.

We are all fortunate to live here, among the many majestic Torrey Pines trees that surround our houses, and believe that ocean views can be enjoyed by all in the spirit of community and neighborly goodwill.

Dan and Edna Maneval
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 6:13 AM deftos <[email protected]> wrote:

Edna and Daniel,

Thank you for your time the other day. This email follows up on our conversation. Briefly, both the Deftos and Michaels families have lost the majority of our scenic views due to three Torrey Pines trees growing in the back and side yard of the Whites house, which is located in a narrow canyon south and southwest of our houses. These trees nearly completely block our primary scenic views, which we previously enjoyed for over 40 years and 10 years, respectively. Included are pictures demonstrating this. Please feel free to come to our houses to observe. For the Deftos’ house, you are welcome to walk in the backyard when we are not there and see for yourself. The view from our back deck is essentially the same as from our entire upper floor. We also included a diagram with the trees that demonstrates how these trees block the views from our houses.

Both our families have applied to the City of Del Mar seeking restoration of our views under the Trees, Scenic View and Sunlight Ordinance. The public hearing for this is now set for December 7th. If the City determines that our views have been unreasonably obstructed, the next step would be to come up with a view restoration 1110 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 2 plan. This could range from a trimming plan to complete removal of the trees. If any of the trees were to be removed, they could be replaced with small Torrey Pine trees further away from the house that could be better maintained going forward so that they do not block neighbors' views. For subject tree #1, due to the way the tree has been maintained such that the canopy is restricted to a narrow band at the top that blocks our view, removal may be necessary to meaningfully restore our view.

We imagine that such a plan could take one of the following: View Restoration Plan 1: A trimming plan involving trees #1, #2 and #3. View Restoration Plan 2: Removal of tree #1 and trimming of trees #2 and #3. View Restoration Plan 3: Removal of trees #1, #2 and #3.

One factor the City of Del Mar takes into consideration in this process is the value of the tree to the community. This is apparently elevated by the trees being Torrey Pines trees and within the area of the Carmel Valley Precise Plan. It is our opinion that these trees have little aesthetic value to the community since they are largely surrounded by the canyon walls and the White's house and are generally not visible from most of the neighborhood streets or neighborhood properties. I do not believe they are visible from your house. We would like to know if you would be supportive of, neutral to, or in opposition to any of the above view restoration plans? Do you think implementation of any of these view restoration plans would negatively impact the community? Do you think implementation of any of these view restoration plans would negatively impact your property?

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Please feel free to add any information or comment as you see fit.

Please let us know if you are okay with us forwarding your response to the City of Del Mar.

Thank you,
Michael and Angela Deftos
Carly and Hal Michaels

Deftos house prior view
Deftos house current view
Michaels house prior view
Michaels house current view
1121 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 From: deftos <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 2:49 PM
To: Adriana Jaramishian; Carolyn Michaels
Subject: Fwd: Trees
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Adriana,
Please include the following email chain in the Deftos' and Michaels' TSVS applications. It includes an email in support of our TSVS applications from our neighbors John and Peggy Overland who live across the street from us at 351 Ocean View Ave.

Their email response to our inquiry to them is:

As neighbors of the Deftos
family for 43 plus years,
We have seen their view dwindle very
significantly. My wife and I totally support
Michael's efforts to cleanup the Torrey pines
growth that has occurred unabated over the
years. Much of this in my estimation occurred
after the trees were apparently topped and this
encouraged very significant bushey growth.

Michael has made very significant efforts to work
a reasonable compromise.

We are totally supportive of his current efforts to
restore his view.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Deftos <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: Trees
To: John Overland <[email protected]>
Thanks again
Sent from my iPhone
1132 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 On Nov 12, 2021, at 12:54 PM, John Overland <[email protected]> wrote:

Yes
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021, 9:40 AM Michael Deftos <[email protected]> wrote:

Do we have your permission to forward or otherwise share your email with the City of Del Mar?
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 11, 2021, at 3:30 PM, Michael Deftos
<[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you

Michael and Angela
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 11, 2021, at 1:57 PM, John Overland
<[email protected]> wrote:

As neighbors of the Deftos
family for 43 plus years,
We have seen their view dwindle very
significantly. My wife and I totally support
Michael's efforts to cleanup the Torrey pines
growth that has occurred unabated over the
years. Much of this in my estimation occurred
after the trees were apparently topped and this
encouraged very significant bushey growth.

Michael has made very significant efforts to work
a reasonable compromise.

We are totally supportive of his current efforts to
restore his view.

Sincerely John and Peggy Overland 351 ocean
view Avenue Del Mar
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021, 1:33 PM deftos
<[email protected]> wrote:
1143 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 John and Peggy,

We have sent this email to most of our neighbors
on Torrey Pines Terrace after meeting with them
briefly in person. We know you are well aware of
our situation with the Whites and their
trees. Briefly, both the Deftos and Michaels
families have lost the majority of our scenic views
due to three Torrey Pines trees growing in the
back and side yard of the Whites house, which is
located in a narrow canyon south and southwest
of our houses. These trees nearly completely
block our primary scenic views, which we
previously enjoyed for over 40 years and 10
years, respectively. Included are pictures
demonstrating this. We also included a diagram
with the trees that demonstrates how these trees
block the views from our houses.

As you know, both our families have applied to
the City of Del Mar seeking restoration of our
views under the Trees, Scenic View and Sunlight
Ordinance. The public hearing for this is now set
for December 7th. If the City determines that our
views have been unreasonably obstructed, the
next step would be to come up with a view
restoration plan. This could range from a
trimming plan to complete removal of the
trees. If any of the trees were to be removed, they
could be replaced with small Torrey Pine trees
further away from the house that could be better
maintained going forward so that they do not
block neighbors' views. For subject tree #1, due
to the way the tree has been maintained such that
the canopy is restricted to a narrow band at the
top that blocks our view, removal may be
necessary to meaningfully restore our view.

We imagine that such a plan could take one of the
following forms: View Restoration Plan 1: A
trimming plan involving trees #1, #2 and
#3. View Restoration Plan 2: Removal of tree
#1 and trimming of trees #2 and #3. View
Restoration Plan 3: Removal of trees #1, #2 and
#3.

1154 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 One factor the City of Del Mar takes into
consideration in this process is the value of the
tree to the community. This is apparently
elevated by the trees being Torrey Pines trees and
within the area of the Carmel Valley Precise
Plan. It is our opinion that these trees have little
aesthetic value to the community since they are
largely surrounded by the canyon walls and the
White's house and are generally not visible from
most of the neighborhood streets or neighborhood
properties. We would like to know if you would
be supportive of, neutral to, or in opposition to
any of the above view restoration plans? Do you
think implementation of any of these view
restoration plans would negatively impact the
community? Do you think implementation of
any of these view restoration plans would
negatively impact your property?

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Please feel free to add any information or
comment as you see fit.

Please let us know if you are okay with us
forwarding your response to the City of Del Mar.

Thank you,
Michael and Angela Deftos
Carly and Hal Michaels

1165 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Deftos house prior view
1176 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Deftos house current view
Michaels house prior view
1187 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Michaels house current view
1198 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 12019 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 From: deftos <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 1:39 PM
To: Adriana Jaramishian; Carolyn Michaels
Subject: Fwd: Trees
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Adriana,

Please include the following email chain in the Deftos' and Michaels' TSVS applications. It includes an email in support of our TSVS applications from our neighbors Pauline and Don Resnick who live up the street from us at 251 Torrey Pines Terrace.

They gave us permission to forward this email to you.

Michael and Angela Deftos
Carly and Hal Michaels
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Pauline Chu <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: Trees
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Deftos and Michaels,
This is in regards to the Torrey Pine trees located in the back and side yards of the White's property.

Based on earlier photos and the view as it exists today, it is clear the growth of the White’s trees sited in the Deftos' and Michaels' view corridor has nearly completely blocked their primary scenic view.

Since the purchased our home at 251 Torrey Pines Terrace in 2003, these same trees on the White’s property have grown to significantly block part of our scenic view of the ocean from both the living room and the master bedroom owing to their dramatic size and density. As these trees continue to grow, they will have an increasing detrimental impact on the scenic view from our home.
1210 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 We fully appreciate the importance of Torrey Pine trees to Del Mar. However, we do not believe these trees in the back and side yards of the White’s property have a significant aesthetic value to the community as they are intimate with and surrounded by canyon walls and are not clearly visible from the streets or the properties adjacent to the White’s.

These trees are most visible from the Deftos’ home, the Michaels’ home, and our home with a very negative obstructive impact owing to their precise location.

We fully support the View Restoration Plans proposed by the Deftos and Michaels. It is our opinion that none of these 3 plans would have a negative impact on the community nor our property.

We strongly support implementation of Plan #3, #2, and #1 in that order.

We are hopeful that the Del Mar City Council will restore the scenic views which brings such enjoyment to each of our daily lives and for which we originally purchased our homes.

You have our permission to forward this correspondence to the City of Del Mar.

Sincerely,
Pauline and Don Resnick
251 Torrey Pines Terrace
Del Mar, Ca 92014
-----Original Message-----
From: deftos <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Carolyn Michaels <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Nov 11, 2021 6:06 am
Subject: Trees
Pauline and Donald,

Thank you for your time the other day. This email follows up on our conversation. Briefly, both the Deftos and Michaels families have lost the majority of our scenic views due to three Torrey Pines trees growing in the back and side yard of the Whites house, which is located in a narrow canyon south and southwest of our houses. These trees nearly completely block our primary scenic views, which we previously enjoyed for over 40 years and 10 years, 1221 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 respectively. Included are pictures demonstrating this. Please feel free to come to our houses to observe. For the Deftos’ house, you are welcome to walk in the backyard when we are not there and see for yourself. The view from our back deck is essentially the same as from our entire upper floor. We also included a diagram with the trees that demonstrates how these trees block the views from our houses.

Both our families have applied to the City of Del Mar seeking restoration of our views under the Trees, Scenic View and Sunlight Ordinance. The public hearing for this is now set for December 7th. If the City determines that our views have been unreasonably obstructed, the next step would be to come up with a view restoration plan. This could range from a trimming plan to complete removal of the trees. If any of the trees were to be removed, they could be replaced with small Torrey Pine trees further away from the house that could be better maintained going forward so that they do not block neighbors' views. For subject tree #1, due to the way the tree has been maintained such that the canopy is restricted to a narrow band at the top that blocks our view, removal may be necessary to meaningfully restore our view.

We imagine that such a plan could take one of the following: View Restoration Plan 1: A trimming plan involving trees #1, #2 and #3. View Restoration Plan 2: Removal of tree #1 and trimming of trees #2 and #3. View Restoration Plan 3: Removal of trees #1, #2 and #3.

One factor the City of Del Mar takes into consideration in this process is the value of the tree to the community. This is apparently elevated by the trees being Torrey Pines trees and within the area of the Carmel Valley Precise Plan. It is our opinion that these trees have little aesthetic value to the community since they are largely surrounded by the canyon walls and the White's house and are generally not visible from most of the neighborhood streets or neighborhood properties. They are visible from your house and may become increasingly visible if they continue to grow. We would like to know if you would be supportive of, neutral to, or in opposition to any of the above view restoration plans? Do you think implementation of any of these view restoration plans would negatively impact the community? Do you think implementation of any of these view restoration plans would negatively impact your property?

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Please feel free to add any information or comment as you see fit.

Please let us know if you are okay with us forwarding your response to the City of Del Mar.

Thank you,
Michael and Angela Deftos
Carly and Hal Michaels

Deftos house prior view
Deftos house current view
Michaels house prior view
1232 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Michaels house current view
1243 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 1 Adriana Jaramishian
From: deftos <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 7:16 PM
To: Adriana Jaramishian; Carolyn Michaels
Subject: Fwd: Trees
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Adriana,

Please include the following email in the Deftos' and Michaels' TSVS applications. It includes an email in support of our TSVS applications from our neighbors Dennis and Susan Swift, who live up the street from us at 290 Torrey Pines Terrace.

They gave us permission to forward this email to you.

This should be the seventh email of support we have forwarded to you.

Michael and Angela Deftos
Carly and Hal Michaels.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Susan Swift <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 3:31 PM
Subject: Trees
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Michael,
We have now viewed the trees on Harvey White’s property from your backyard and our own living room windows. While we treasure both the Torrey pines and the ocean views that our little corner of Del Mar offers, we do not like to see one’s views unreasonably obstructed by the trees.

We are supportive of the view restoration plans outlined in your email, including removal of the offending trees.

We do not believe implementation of any of the view restoration plans would negatively impact the community.

You may share this response with the City of Del Mar .
1254 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 2 Dennis and Susan Swift
290 Torrey Pines Terrace
1265 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 From: deftos <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2021 10:08 AM
To: Adriana Jaramishian; Carolyn Michaels
Subject: Fwd: White's Trees/View Dispute
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Adriana,

Please include the following email chain in the Deftos' and Michaels' TSVS applications. It includes an email in support of our TSVS applications from our neighbor Margret (Wootsie) who lives adjacent to the Whites at 469 W Ocean View Ave.

Her email response to our inquiry is:

Thank you for your email and for laying out the detailed plans options.

I have always felt that maintaining ocean views in our neighborhood is an important task. These majestic views of the ocean are the reason I originally chose to live here. When the views become blocked or greatly obscured, both the value of the property declines as well as reduces the enjoyment of one’s home. I too have asked a neighbor below me to keep trees (not Torrey Pines) trimmed. They had planted trees for the privacy of their swimming pool, but then subsequently grew up and obscured my ocean view. There is a large old Torrey Pine on my property directly behind my house. Some years ago, the previous owners of the house directly behind me asked that I trim my Torrey Pine to greatly thin out the branches to enhance their ocean view to which I agreed. Keeping all trees, including Torrey Pines, trimmed and thinned to preserve a neighbor’s view just seemed the right thing to do. That being said, I would not want to remove my tree completely as the lower main trunk and branches provide a kind of natural art visual piece with the twisted old structure. I would imagine the White’s might feel the same about theirs.

I have watched tree # 1 grow exponentially over the years. Before a house was built in that canyon, the Torrey Pine existed without irrigation water and my guess is with the added irrigation, the tree shot skyward and came to block the views from Torrey Pines Terrace residences. With some lowering of the height and thinning of the canopy, some of the ocean views will return. A maintenance plan to keep the trees from filling back in would be necessary so this issue does not have to be addressed repeatedly over the coming years.

Here are my choices for the remediation proposed plans; Plan #1
Supportive
Plan #2
Neutral
1276 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Plan #3
Opposed
My hope is with the assistance of the City of Del Mar and and the cooperation of neighbors, a reasonable solution to this view maintenance issue can be found.

She gave us permission to forward this email to you.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Margaret Stockton <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 7:59 PM
Subject: White's Trees/View Dispute
To: deftos <[email protected]>
Dear Michael and Angela,
Thank you for your email and for laying out the detailed plans options.

I have always felt that maintaining ocean views in our neighborhood is an important task. These majestic views of the ocean are the reason I originally chose to live here. When the views become blocked or greatly obscured, both the value of the property declines as well as reduces the enjoyment of one’s home. I too have asked a neighbor below me to keep trees (not Torrey Pines) trimmed. They had planted trees for the privacy of their swimming pool, but then subsequently grew up and obscured my ocean view. There is a large old Torrey Pine on my property directly behind my house. Some years ago, the previous owners of the house directly behind me asked that I trim my Torrey Pine to greatly thin out the branches to enhance their ocean view to which I agreed. Keeping all trees, including Torrey Pines, trimmed and thinned to preserve a neighbor’s view just seemed the right thing to do. That being said, I would not want to remove my tree completely as the lower main trunk and branches provide a kind of natural art visual piece with the twisted old structure. I would imagine the White’s might feel the same about theirs.

I have watched tree # 1 grow exponentially over the years. Before a house was built in that canyon, the Torrey Pine existed without irrigation water and my guess is with the added irrigation, the tree shot skyward and came to block the views from Torrey Pines Terrace residences. With some lowering of the height and thinning of the canopy, some of the ocean views will return. A maintenance plan 1287 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 to keep the trees from filling back in would be necessary so this issue does not have to be addressed repeatedly over the coming years.

Here are my choices for the remediation proposed plans; Plan #1
Supportive
Plan #2
Neutral
Plan #3
Opposed
My hope is with the assistance of the City of Del Mar and and the cooperation of neighbors, a reasonable solution to this view maintenance issue can be found.

Sincerely,
Wootsie Stockton
P.S.

Please feel free to present any and all of this email in the December hearing On Nov 11, 2021, at 10:15 PM, Margaret Stockton
<[email protected]> wrote:

Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: deftos <[email protected]>
Date: November 8, 2021 at 12:41:36 AM EST
To: Margaret Stockton <[email protected]>
Subject: White's Trees/View Dispute

Wootsie,

I believe you are aware of my family's long standing
dispute with the Whites regarding the Torrey Pine
trees in their backyard. These trees, particularly the
one in their north backyard, nearly completely block
1298 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 the primary scenic view from our home, which we
previously enjoyed for over 40 years. I included a
picture taken from our living room demonstrating
this with the subject trees numbered.

In addition to blocking our view, the trees also block
the view from our neighbor’s house to the east, the
Michaels. They have also tried to have the Whites
maintain their trees to preserve their view, but like
us have been unsuccessful in this effort. I included
a picture taken from their home demonstrating this
with the subject trees similarly numbered.

I also included a diagram with the trees numbered
that demonstrates how these trees block the views
from our houses.

Both my family and the Michaels family have
applied to the City of Del Mar seeking restoration of
our view under the Trees, Scenic View and Sunlight
Ordinance (DMMC 23.51). The public hearing for
this is now set for December 7th. If the City
determines that our views have been unreasonably
obstructed, the next step would be to come up with
a view restoration plan. This could range from a
trimming plan to complete removal of the trees. If
any of the trees were to be removed, they could be
replaced with small Torrey Pine trees further away
from the house that could be better maintained
going forward so that they do not block neighbors'
views.

For the main tree blocking our view (tree #1), due
to the way the tree has been maintained such that
canopy is restricted to a relatively narrow band at
the top that blocks our view, removal may be
necessary to meaningfully restore our view.

One factor the City of Del Mar takes into
consideration in this process is the value of the
trees to the community. It is my opinion that tree
#1 has little value to the community since it is
surrounded by the canyon walls and the White's
house and is generally not visible to any significant
extent from the neighborhood. One exception is
from your house. I included a couple pictures that I
took from your house on August 4, 2020 when I first
talked to you. These pictures show the canopy of
the tree(s) behind a hedge of bushes and a pine
13029 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 tree on your property, with the same numbering as
in the other pictures and diagram.

An additional consideration that I am bringing up is
that these trees are a fire hazard due to the fact
that they severely overgrow the roof of the house
and have no fire break between their canopies.

I am writing to ask if you would be supportive
of, in opposition to, or neutral to such a
remediation plan. Specifically the following
range of plans:

View Restoration Plan 1: A trimming plan
involving trees #1, #2 and #3.

Supportive, Opposed, or Neutral

View Restoration Plan 2: Removal of tree #1
with possible replacement and trimming of trees #2
and #3.

Supportive, Opposed, or Neutral

View Restoration Plan 3: Removal of trees #1, #2
and #3 with possible replacement

Supportive, Opposed, or Neutral

Factors that might come into consideration for you
are:

Would removal of the trees negatively impact your
property?
Do the trees provide you with privacy that could not
be reasonably restored by your hedge.

Do you think implementation of these remediation
plans would negatively impact the community?
Are you concerned about any fire hazard imposed
by the trees?

Thank you for your consideration in this matter,
Michael and Angela Deftos
Prior view from Deftos house:
1310 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Current view from Deftos house:
1321 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Current view from Michaels house:

View blockage diagram:

Trees from Wootsie house:
1332 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Trees from Wootsie house:
1343 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 From: deftos <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 11:22 AM
To: Adriana Jaramishian
Cc: Carolyn Michaels
Subject: Fwd: Trees
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Adriana,
Please include the following email chain in the Deftos' and Michaels' TSVS applications. It includes an email in support of our TSVS applications from our neighbors Vern and Patty Yates who live up the street from us at 285 Torrey Pines Terrace.

Their email response to our inquiry to them is: "Patty and I are very supportive of your plan. I see no negative impact on the neighborhood. Any one of the alternatives would have a positive impact on our view."
They gave us permission to forward this email to you.

Thanks,
Michael and Angela Deftos
Carly and Hal Michaels
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Deftos <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: Trees
To: Patty Yates <[email protected]>
Thanks again
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 12, 2021, at 10:25 AM, Patty Yates <[email protected]> wrote:

Yes

1354 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 From: Michael Deftos
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 9:39 AM
To: Vern Yates
Subject: Re: Trees

Do we have your permission to forward or otherwise share your email with the City of Del Mar?
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 11, 2021, at 8:18 PM, Michael Deftos
<[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you

Michael and Angela

Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 11, 2021, at 8:06 PM, Vern Yates
<[email protected]> wrote:

Patty and I are very supportive of your plan. I see
no negative impact on the neighborhood. Any one
of the alternatives would have a positive impact on
our view.

On Nov 11, 2021, at 6:09 AM, deftos
<[email protected]> wrote:
1365 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Vern and Patricia,

Thank you for your time the other
day. This email follows up on our
conversation. Briefly, both the
Deftos and Michaels families
have lost the majority of our
scenic views due to three Torrey
Pines trees growing in the back
and side yard of the Whites
house, which is located in a
narrow canyon south and
southwest of our houses. These
trees nearly completely block our
primary scenic views, which we
previously enjoyed for over 40
years and 10 years,
respectively. Included are
pictures demonstrating
this. Please feel free to come to
our houses to observe. For the
Deftos’ house, you are welcome
to walk in the backyard when we
are not there and see for
yourself. The view from our back
deck is essentially the same as
from our entire upper floor. We
also included a diagram with the
trees that demonstrates how
these trees block the views from
our houses.

Both our families have applied to
the City of Del Mar seeking
restoration of our views under the
Trees, Scenic View and Sunlight
Ordinance. The public hearing
for this is now set for December
7th. If the City determines that
our views have been
unreasonably obstructed, the
next step would be to come up
with a view restoration plan. This
could range from a trimming plan
1376 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 to complete removal of the
trees. If any of the trees were to
be removed, they could be
replaced with small Torrey Pine
trees further away from the house
that could be better maintained
going forward so that they do not
block neighbors' views. For
subject tree #1, due to the way
the tree has been maintained
such that the canopy is restricted
to a narrow band at the top that
blocks our view, removal may be
necessary to meaningfully restore
our view.

We imagine that such a plan
could take one of the following:

View Restoration Plan 1: A
trimming plan involving trees #1,
#2 and #3. View Restoration
Plan 2: Removal of tree #1 and
trimming of trees #2 and
#3. View Restoration Plan
3: Removal of trees #1, #2 and
#3.

One factor the City of Del Mar
takes into consideration in this
process is the value of the tree to
the community. This is
apparently elevated by the trees
being Torrey Pines trees and
within the area of the Carmel
Valley Precise Plan. It is our
opinion that these trees have little
aesthetic value to the community
since they are largely surrounded
by the canyon walls and the
White's house and are generally
not visible from most of the
neighborhood streets or
neighborhood properties. They
are visible from your house and
may become increasingly visible
if they continue to grow. We
1387 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 would like to know if you would
be supportive of, neutral to, or in
opposition to any of the above
view restoration plans? Do you
think implementation of any of
these view restoration plans
would negatively impact the
community? Do you think
implementation of any of these
view restoration plans would
negatively impact your property?

Please let us know if you have
any questions.

Please feel free to add any
information or comment as you
see fit.

Please let us know if you are
okay with us forwarding your
response to the City of Del Mar.

Thank you,
Michael and Angela Deftos
Carly and Hal Michaels

1398 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Deftos house prior view
14039 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Deftos house current view

1410 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 Michaels house prior view

Michaels house current view
1421 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12

1432 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12 City of Del Mar
Staff Report

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
August 9, 2022
APPLICATION: TVS21-002
APPLICANTS:

Name: Michael and Angela Deftos
Address: 225 Torrey Pines Terrace
Del Mar, CA 92014
APN#: 301-033-32
TREE OWNERS:

Name: Harvey and Sheryl White
Address: 473 Ocean View Avenue
Del Mar, CA 92014
APN #: 301-033-04

BACKGROUND
Previous Planning Commission Hearings:

On December 7, 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed the above-referenced Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight application, and conducted a public hearing to determine whether three (3) Torrey Pine (Pinus torreyana) trees located on the property at 473 Ocean View Avenue have grown to unreasonably obstruct pre-existing scenic views from the Primary Living Area (PLA), the living room, of the Applicants’ residence located at 225 Torrey Pines Terrace. Upon reviewing the application materials and available documentation of the pre-existing view, which is southernoriented blue water and horizon/sky of the Pacific Ocean and the Torrey Pines State Reserve, from Applicant’s PLA, the Planning Commission determined (in a 4-0-1 vote, with Commissioner Countryman absent) that the tree growth constituted an “unreasonable obstruction of the Applicants’ scenic view” as it was observed within the last ten years.

After making the findings required pursuant to DMMC Sections 23.51.050 A and B in support of an a determination of unreasonable scenic view obstruction from 225 Torrey Pines Terrace, the Planning Commission continued the item and appointed a subcommittee consisting of Commissioners Bakker and Farrell to work with staff regarding the development of an appropriate restoration plan for recommendation to the Commission. It was noted by Commissioners that removal of a protected tree should be a last resort to restore the Applicants’ view and that view restoration and maintenance through careful trimming should be preferred, if possible. The full staff report from the December 7, 2021 Planning Commission meeting is available for review on the City’s website at 1 August 9, 2022 Item 01

AGENDA REPORT

ATTACHMENT C
1443 September 19, 2022 September 19, 2022 Item 12 Item 12

PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT: TVS-21-002
August 9, 2022