All new residential and non-residential buildings
are required to be all-electric unless an
exception applies. All-electric is defined as:
A building that has no natural gas or propane
installed within the building; there is no gas
meter connection; and that uses electricity as
the source of energy for its space heating, water
heating, cooking appliances, and clothes drying
appliances. All electric buildings may include
solar thermal pool heating.
WHY DO WE NEED A DEFINITION FOR NEW
CONSTRUCTION?
In coastal communities, it is common to keep
one or two walls and demolish the rest of the
building. This approach is often implemented to
save resources including processing time
through the discretionary review process, park
fees, and school fees, among others. The
California Building Code (CBC) defines newly
constructed structures as: “A building that has
never before been used or occupied for any
purpose”. Historically, various divisions within
the city (i.e., building, planning, engineering,
and fire) have all implemented their own unique
definition of new construction, which made it
difficult to uniformly classify new construction
across divisions.
WHAT IS THE CITY’S DEFINITION OF “NEW
CONSTRUCTION?”
A newly constructed building that has never been
used or occupied for any purpose is defined as “new
construction.”
1 For automatic fire sprinkler requirements, please
contact Fire Prevention staff.
2 For Coastal Development Permit requirements related
to the removal of more than 50 percent of the exterior
An existing building that is completely removed and
replaced is considered “new construction.”
An existing building that is modified/renovated in a
manner that causes of the following conditions to
occur, is considered “new construction.”1
1a. More than 50 percent of the roof framing (e.g.,
structural support) is removed; and
1b. More than 50 percent of the exterior bearing
walls or column supports (where there are no
bearing walls) are removed; or2
2. The proposed conditioned area in an addition
or alteration more than doubles that of the
existing building’s conditioned floor area or
volume.
The wall calculations are based on the horizontal
measurement (surface area) of the affected portion
of the exterior bearing walls between the associated
footings and the ceilings. Cripple walls below the
floor, or parapets, and similar projections above the
roof are not included in the calculations of the
exterior wall surface areas.
This definition applies to low-rise residential
buildings (including single-family residential,
duplexes, multi-family residential), and
nonresidential building uses.
Please see pages 4-6 for visual examples of these
conditions.
WHAT IF THERE IS A HOUSE AND AN ADU ON THE
SITE? WOULD THE ADU BE INCLUDED IN THE
TOTAL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS?
Any detached structure will be assessed on its
own merits and will not be included in the overall
floor area calculations of the primary structure.
walls, please contact Planning staff. ADD TO FOOTER/
BOTTOM OF ALL SHEETS…
Attachment E 38 October 17, 2022 Item 17
Development Services Department
New Construction Definition FAQ
August 2022
Other attached structures (garages, junior
accessory dwelling unit, etc.) (connected to the
primary structure on the site) will be included in
the overall floor area calculation.
HOW WOULD THE AREAS BE CALCULATED IF
TWO STRUCTURES ARE CONNECTED USING A
BREEZEWAY?
If two buildings are connected by a
breezeway, they shall be assumed as one
building for the purpose of actual versus
allowable area calculations. For the protection
of openings for fire separation distance, their
areas may be added except for the
breezeway, which is not conditioned.1
WOULD AN ATTACHED GARAGE, PATIO COVER,
POOL HOUSE, ETC., BE CONSIDERED A PART OF
THE FLOOR AREA FOR PURPOSES OF BEING
DETERMINED AS NEW CONSTRUCTION?
Only conditioned floor areas are included in
the area calculation for determining if a project
more than doubles the area of an existing
building’s floor area.1 In other words,
unconditioned areas (garage, patio covers,
etc.) shall be excluded from the existing floor
area when determining whether or not a
project more than doubles the area of an
existing building.
WHAT IF ONLY 48% OF THE EXTERIOR WALLS
WERE REMOVED AND REPLACED, BUT THE
RENOVATION RESULTED IN MORE THAN
DOUBLING THE SIZE OF THE CONDITIONED
SPACE?
1 For automatic fire sprinkler requirements, please
contact Fire Prevention staff.
If the renovation results in more than doubling
the size of the conditioned space, the project is
considered “new construction.”1
WHAT IF 60 PERCENT OF THE ROOF AND 70
PERCENT OF THE EXTERIOR WALLS WERE
REMOVED AND REPLACED, BUT THE
REPLACEMENT AREA DID NOT RESULT IN
DOUBLING THE FLOOR AREA OF THE
CONDITIONED SPACE?
Once more than 50 percent of the exterior
walls and more than 50 percent roof are
removed and replaced, conditions a & b
(above) are met. Therefore, the building is
considered “new” and will need to comply with
the electrification/ green building (Ordinance
No. 2021-13) ordinance requirements.
IF THE EXTERIOR WALLS ARE NOT DEMOLISHED,
BUT ALL THE FINISHES ARE REMOVED INCLUDING
STUCCO, DRYWALL, INSULATION, FIXTURES,
AND APPLIANCES AS WELL AS THE ROOFING
MATERIAL, WOULD THE BUILDING BE TREATED
AS NEW?
Yes, in this case, the building is considered
“new,” even though the roof structure and/or
exterior walls are not demolished entirely.
This means for the purpose of providing
structural calculations, Title-24 energy
calculations, meeting green building code
requirements, making connection to sewer
(versus septic), providing automatic fire
sprinklers, compliance with the greywater
ordinance, and reach-code regulations, etc.,
the building is considered new. However,
please consult the authority having jurisdiction
to verify if/when certain requirements apply1,2
Attachment E 39 October 17, 2022 Item 17
Development Services Department
New Construction Definition FAQ
August 2022
ARE CERTAIN OCCUPANCIES EXEMPT FROM THIS
DEFINITION?
No, this ordinance applies to all occupancies
including single-family residential, multi-family
residential, industrial, and commercial.
Non-conditioned structures are exempt from this
definition regardless of their occupancy
category.1
HOW DOES THE “NEW CONSTRUCTION”
DEFINITION APPLY IF CUMULATIVE ADDITIONS
ARE DONE OVER A SPAN OF SEVERAL YEARS?
If there are multiple renovations done to a
structure, which more than doubles the size of
the conditioned space over a span of 3-years,
for the purpose of the regulations, the project is
considered new.1
HOW WILL THE CITY HANDLE INTERPRETATIONS,
OR SCENARIOS THAT POSE UNCLEAR
ANSWERS?
When major renovations are undertaken, the
applicant is encouraged to meet with City staff,
to ensure the extent and application of the
regulations for the project are clear.
FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:
Building Division
Development Services Department
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
https://encinitasca.gov/
1 For automatic fire sprinkler requirements, please
contact Fire Prevention staff.
Attachment E 40 October 17, 2022 Item 17
Development Services Department
New Construction Definition FAQ
August 2022
New Construction Example 1
2 nd story add =
1,050 sq ft
Original house
2,000 sq ft
1,100 sq ft add
on 1st floor
New construction - Condition 1a: More that 50% of the roof framing is removed. 2 nd story add = 1, 050
*Garage or similar unconditioned floor areas are excluded from consideration for this provision
Garage*
480 sq ft
Area to be
removed &
replaced
Add 1,100
sq ft
New construction - Condition 2: The proposed conditioned area in an addition/or remodel more than doubles that of the existing.
Total = 4,150; Ratio = 4150/2000 = 2.10 > 2.0
(Conditioned area)
SF existing home: 2,000 New total: 4,150
SF added area: 2,150 4,150 (new s.f.)/2,000 (existing s.f.)=2.10>2.0 A A
Demo roof
Section A-A
[Not to scale]
30’ 0”
10’ 0”
35’ 0”
40’ 0”
10’ 0”
10’ 0”
Attachment E 41 October 17, 2022 Item 17
Development Services Department
New Construction Definition FAQ
August 2022
New Construction Example 2
New construction - Condition 1b: More than 50% of the exterior bearing walls (or columns, where there are no walls) are removed.
Over 50% of existing exterior columns are impacted by the renovation New construction - Condition 2: The proposed conditioned area in an addition/or remodel more than doubles that of the existing.
Total conditioned floor area = 2625/1200 = 2.19 > 2.0
Original conditioned area
SF existing area: 1,200
SF added area: 1,425
New total: 2,625
2,625 (new s.f.) / 1,200 (existing s.f.) = 2.19 > 2.0
RV
Garage*
1,200 sq ft
Add 1,425 sq ft
*Excluded from
consideration
for this
provision
(unconditioned
space)
PL
PL
120’ 0”
100’ 0”
26’ 8”
45’ 0”
30’ 0”
30’ 0”
40’ 0”
7’ 6”
10’ 0”
Attachment E 42 October 17, 2022 Item 17
Development Services Department
New Construction Definition FAQ
August 2022
New Construction Example 3
If addition of the mezzanine and the basement result in doubling the volume of the conditioned space, then Condition 2 is met. Albeit for the purpose of the CBC, mezzanine and basement may be exempt from floor area calculations.
Add new
mezzanine
Guardrail
Existing 1-story
Existing under area
Excavate & add new
basement
Guardrail
New slab on grade
Add new
retaining wall
Existing retaining
wall
Attachment E 43 October 17, 2022 Item 17
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: October 17, 2022
SUBJECT: Initial Consideration of an Appeal of the City Manager’s Decision on Encroachment Permit EP22-064
EP Applicant/Appellant: Steven Crowe
Applicant’s Address: 111 Sea Cliff Way
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council not set the appeal for a de novo hearing.
BACKGROUND:
On June 21, 2022, the Appellant applied for a long-term minor encroachment permit (EP22-064) to install landscaping and irrigation consisting of 'Texanum' - Waxleaf Privet hedges (Ligustrum japonicum) in the three-foot-wide unpaved portion of alley public rightof-way located along a portion of the applicant/appellant’s property frontage.
The property is located on the southern side of the terminus of Sea Cliff Way and was redeveloped with a two detached and condominiumized dwelling units. The northern home on the property, 111 Sea Cliff Way, includes a staggered concrete wall with glass panels along the property’s northern boundary. The alley has been improved with varying widths along the property frontage, with approximately half of the frontage improved with pavement up to the property line and the other half of the frontage consisting of a threefoot-wide unimproved area between the pavement and the property line. The Appellant’s application indicated the hedges would be maintained by the property owner at the same height of the existing wall and would serve to provide a privacy screen between the street and the yard (Attachment A).
On July 13, 2022, EP22-064 was denied by the City Manager (Attachment B). The denial decision was based on the materials included in the application and a determination that the proposal would be inconsistent with the following sections of the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC):
1 October 17, 2022 Item 18
City Council Agenda Report
EP22-064 (111 Sea Cliff Way) – Initial Consideration of an Appeal October 17, 2022
• DMMC 23.28.040 – Prohibited Encroachments (B.3)
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. • The denial is also based on inconsistency with City Council Policy 110 – Private Encroachments into Public Rights-of-Way which states:
“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.”
THE APPEAL
On July 22, 2022, Steven Crowe (Applicant) filed an appeal with the City Clerk of the City Manager’s denial of EP22-064 (Attachment C). Below are the Applicant’s reasons for appeal (shown in bold text) with staff’s responses (shown in italics):
Appeal Point 1: The vegetation would address privacy concerns from pedestrians passing by.
The Appellant currently has clear glass panels on the northern part of the property (alley frontage) and would like to find a solution to screen their backyard from passersby.
Staff Response:
Alternatives to the proposed vegetation exist, such as modifying the property’s boundary wall to be non-transparent or planting the hedge south of the wall on private property.
Appeal Point 2: The proposed area to be vegetated would not be converted for private use.
The Appellant states that since their wall on Sea Cliff Way abuts an unpaved dirt strip, they are not capturing or converting any City property for private use. Furthermore, if the City did not want the Appellant to plant the dirt strip, it should have paved the street up to their wall.
Staff Response:
It is staff’s position that the location of the proposed vegetation within the public right-ofway would convey the impression that approximately half of the eighty (80) foot property frontage will be encumbered by the vegetation and will appear as if located on private property and reserved solely for the private use of the residents at 111 Sea Cliff Way. 2 October 17, 2022 Item 18
City Council Agenda Report
EP22-064 (111 Sea Cliff Way) – Initial Consideration of an Appeal October 17, 2022
Appeal Point 3: The vegetation will improve the character and value of the community.
The Appellant states that a well-manicured hedge with flowers below will improve the community’s appearance and aesthetics compared to a blank wall along Sea Cliff Way.
Staff Response:
It is staff’s position that a tall, linear, uniformly maintained hedge planted within the public right-of-way would “create the impression that the ‘walled-off’ area is private vs. public property,” which is inconsistent with City Council Policy 110 (Private Encroachments into Public Rights-of-Way). Roughly half of the row of hedges have been planted and located on private property, while the other half is proposed to be located in the right-of-way due to the location of the articulating wall, creating a jogged but solid row of hedges. From a visual point of view, it will appear as though the entirety of the row of hedges is located on private property. Additionally, a tall row of hedges would narrow the visual width of the 20-foot-way alley right-of-way, thus reducing public view of the ocean currently viewed from the upper extent of the public alley.
CONCLUSION
DMMC Section 23.28.020 defines a Long-Term Minor Encroachment Permit 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 not limited to driveway aprons, pathways and walkways, and vegetation.
DMMC Section 23.28.040 provides a list of specifically 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 specifically prohibited. It is staff’s position that the location of the proposed vegetation would convey an impression that approximately half (40’) of the eighty (80’) foot property frontage is private property and reserved solely for the private use of the residents at 111 Sea Cliff Way when half is actually located in the right-of-way.
The Appellant has stated the intent of the hedges is to obscure visibility into the property, and as proposed, there would be no distinction between private property and the public right-of-way based on the application materials.
Additionally, the proposed installation of the landscaping would be inconsistent with City Council Policy 110, which states “examples of 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.” The Appellant has not identified any public benefit(s) that would result from allowing the encroachment in the public right-of-way.
3 October 17, 2022 Item 18
City Council Agenda Report
EP22-064 (111 Sea Cliff Way) – Initial Consideration of an Appeal October 17, 2022
Based on the determination the proposed encroachment is prohibited by DMMC Section
23.28.040 and City Council policy 110, staff recommends the City Council not set this application for a de novo hearing and uphold the City Manager’s denial of EP22-064.
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 the appeal were paid for by the Appellant.
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(a)(1) because it will not have a potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA. No further action under CEQA is required.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Encroachment Permit Plan and Visual Simulation Attachment B – City Manager Determination on EP22-064
Attachment C – Appeal
4 October 17, 2022 Item 18
5 October 17, 2022 Item 18
Ligustrum japonicum ‘Texanum’ (Waxleaf Privet)
Lagerstroemia indica x fauriei ‘Muskogee’ (Crape Myrtle) 111 Sea Cliff Way, Del Mar, 92014 9 June 2022
Project: Crowe Residence
6 October 17, 2022 Item 18
July 13, 2022
Steven Crowe SENT VIA EMAIL & U.S. MAIL
111 Sea Cliff Way
Del Mar CA 92014
Subject: Denial of Encroachment Permit EP22-064
A request for authorization to utilize the public right-of-way adjacent to 111 Sea Cliff Way to plant vegetation.
This letter is to notify you of the denial of your application of Encroachment Permit EP22-064 to utilize the public right-of-way adjacent to 111 Sea Cliff Way to plant vegetation.
This denial determination is based on staff’s review of application materials submitted on June 21, 2022, relative to the following sections of the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC):
• DMMC 23.28.040 – PROHIBITED ENCROACHMENTS (B.3)
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.
• DMMC 23.28.070 – FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
An Encroachment Permit, Minor or Major, may be approved or conditionally approved only if the decision maker makes all of the findings listed in Subsection C of DMMC
23.28.070. Due to the “wall-like” nature of the proposed vegetation/hedge, the impact it would have on the aesthetics of the area, and its appearance as a private improvement, City staff cannot make the following necessary findings for approval of the subject Permit:
3. The proposed Encroachment will not have an adverse impact on the welfare of the community or on the community's appearance or aesthetics;
4. The proposed Encroachment will not cause an unnecessary change in the character of the community; or
6. The proposed Encroachment will not convert significant areas of public property to private use.
City staff has also found that approval of EP22-064 would be inconsistent with City Council Policy #110 – “Private Encroachments into Public Rights-of-Way,” which states:
“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.” 7 October 17, 2022 Item 18
Denial EP22-064
111 Sea Cliff Way
Pursuant to DMMC 23.28.070, this decision is appealable to the City Council in accordance with DMMC Section 23.28.110 within ten (10) working days (closes at 5:30 p.m. on July 27, 2022). Information on the City’s appeal process including submittal requirements is described in DMMC Chapter 1.12. Please contact Sarah Krietor, City Clerk at [email protected] for more information or to submit an appeal. The fee for filing an appeal is $1,547.
If you have any questions on this matter, please contact the project planner, Madeline Shute, at (858) 755-9313.
Clem Brown
Interim Assistant City Manager
8 October 17, 2022 Item 18
9 October 17, 2022 Item 18
10 October 17, 2022 Item 18
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Joe Bride, Public Works Director
Karen Brindley, Planning Director
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: October 17, 2022
SUBJECT: Consideration of Retaining Wall Materials for Utility Undergrounding Project REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Consider and select a retaining wall material for all future phases of the Utility Undergrounding Program (UUP); 2) Authorize staff to select an alternative retaining wall material that is the closest available match to what was approved by the Council if the selected material becomes discontinued; and 3) Authorize staff to select an alternative retaining wall material that is compatible with the surrounding environment and conditions in unique situations where the approved wall material would not be suitable.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
On February 7, 2022, the City Council selected “Eldorado Bluffstone La Plata Stone Veneer” (La Plata) to be the primary retaining wall material to be used for the City’s Utility UUP projects. La Plata had previously been installed on retaining walls along Jimmy Durante Boulevard. The first retaining wall was installed as part of the Tewa Court/10th Street project.
Unfortunately, during construction of the Tewa Court/10th Street project staff learned that the La Plata stone veneer material has been discontinued.
Staff evaluated several alternative stone veneer materials with suppliers and after comparing samples out in the field with the previously approved material, staff recommends that “Creative Mines Craft Trail Ledge Mountain Lion” (Mountain Lion) replace La Plata as the stone veneer material to be installed on the Tewa Court/10th Street retaining wall and all subsequent retaining walls required with future phases of the UUP. Mountain Lion was determined to be the closest match to La Plata in color, shape and texture (Attachment A).
There are two additional circumstances where staff is requesting authority from the City Council to select alternative retaining wall materials. First, as is the case with any currently available material, there is a possibility that the Mountain Lion stone veneer may also become discontinued in the future, in which case staff is requesting Council authorization to select a replacement stone veneer material that most closely matches Mountain Lion/La Plata in color, shape and texture.
Second, future UUP retaining walls may be located in settings that would warrant an alternative material that is more compatible with the surrounding environment and conditions.
For example, Attachment B to the agenda report shows a future retaining wall location between Penny Lane and the “Shotblast Finish” concrete masonry block wall that surrounds 1 October 17, 2022 Item 19
City Council Agenda Report
Consideration of Retaining Wall Materials for the UUP
October 17, 2022
the Del Mar Civic Center parking lot. In these circumstances, staff requests the ability to select a retaining wall material that is compatible and complimentary to the existing surrounding conditions.
Once Council provides direction on the selection of wall materials, the cultured stone that was installed on the Tewa/10th Street project retaining wall in error will be removed and the newly approved material will be installed.
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 February 7, 2022, City Council awarded a construction contract with Blue Pacific Engineering Construction Inc. for the Tewa Court/10th Street UUP and selected a stone veneer material for all retaining walls applications.
NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
The Utility Undergrounding Project is a Tier 1 City Council priority project.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Mountain Lion Stone Veneer Photo
Attachment B – Penny Lane Photo
2 October 17, 2022 Item 19
ATTACHMENT A
RETAINING WALL ALONG JIMMY DURANTE BOULEVARD
3 October 17, 2022 Item 19
ATTACHMENT B
FUTURE TRANSFORMER RETAINAING WALL
BETWEEN PENNY LANE AND DEL MAR CIVIC CENTER
4 October 17, 2022 Item 19
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Councilmember Terry Gaasterland, Alternate Board Member to the North County Transit District
Ashley Jones, City Manager
Prepared by Clem Brown, Interim Assistant City Manager
DATE: October 17, 2022
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Letter to the North County Transit District Regarding LOSSAN Rail Realignment Funding
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council: 1) Receive a report from Councilmember Gaasterland who serves as the City’s alternative representative to the North County Transit District (NCTD) Board; and 2) Authorize the transmittal of a letter (Attachment A) from the City of Del Mar to NCTD opposing a potential recommendation to the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) to use $300 million in State funding earmarked for the Los Angeles–San Diego–San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor (LOSSAN) Rail Realignment Project on alternative infrastructure projects.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
On September 15, 2022, the NCTD Board of Directors (Board) received a presentation from Executive Director Matt Tucker regarding the $300 million State budget appropriation for the LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project (Rail Realignment Project). The presentation included a recommendation to the Board that NCTD develop a strategy to submit to SANDAG that would advance alternative LOSSAN projects for the $300 million state budget line item that is currently earmarked for the Rail Realignment Project.
Some of the alternatives suggested for the $300 million include advancing work on the San Dieguito Lagoon Double Track, Batiquitos Lagoon Double Track, Eastbrook to Shell Double Track, and the San Dieguito to Sorrento Valley Double Track projects. The presentation also included a recommendation that NCTD pursue legislative avenues to define permitted uses within the $300 million that would include infrastructure projects necessary for the eventual success of the rail realignment.
At their next meeting on October 20, 2022, or sometime thereafter, the NCTD Board may consider a request from NCTD staff to send a letter to SANDAG asking that they consider 1 October 17, 2022 Item 20
City Council Agenda Report
Letter to NCTD Opposing Proposal to Redirect Rail Realignment Funding October 17, 2022
alternatives for the $300 million currently allocated to the Rail Realignment Project. Given that the $300 million from the State is critically needed to advance the realignment project through initial design and environmental permitting, it is recommend that the City Council consider sending a letter to NCTD, a draft of which is included with this report as Attachment A, opposing any effort to reallocate the funding for other purposes.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact or action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
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 PRIORITY PROJECTS:
This item is related to efforts to relocate the railroad off the Del Mar Bluffs, which is a Tier 1 City Council Goal and Priority for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Draft Letter to NCTD Board of Directors Opposing Any Alternative Uses of State Funding Earmarked for LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project 2 October 17, 2022 Item 20
1050 Camino Del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 | 858.755.9313 | www.delmar.ca.us October 17, 2022
DRAFT
Chair Edson and Board of Directors SENT VIA EMAIL
North County Transit District
810 Mission Avenue
Oceanside, CA 92054
[email protected]
Re: Upcoming North County Transit District (NCTD) Board Agenda Item – Letter to SANDAG Proposing Alternative Uses of State Funding Earmarked for LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project
Dear Chair Edson and Members of the Board of Directors:
The City of Del Mar submits this letter to express strong opposition to the NCTD Board of Directors (Board) authorizing NCTD staff to request that the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) pursue alternative uses of the $3 Million in State funding earmarked for the LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project (Rail Realignment Project).
On September 15, 2022, the Board received a presentation from Executive Director Matt Tucker regarding the $300 million State budget appropriation for the Rail Realignment Project. The presentation included a recommendation to the Board that NCTD develop a strategy to submit to SANDAG that would advance alternative LOSSAN projects for the $300 million state budget line item that is currently earmarked for the Rail Realignment Project.
Some of the alternatives suggested for the $300 million include advancing work on the San Dieguito Lagoon Double Track, Batiquitos Lagoon Double Track, Eastbrook to Shell Double Track, and the San Dieguito to Sorrento Valley Double Track projects. The presentation also included a recommendation that NCTD pursue legislative avenues to define permitted uses within the $300 million that would include infrastructure projects necessary for the eventual success of the rail realignment.
The City would like to emphasize that the securing of $300 million in State funding for the Rail Realignment Project was hard fought for by elected officials at the local, county and State level and SANDAG staff. The funding is critically needed in order to relocate the NCTD railroad away from the environmentally sensitive and fragile Del Mar bluffs. This funding is a major step towards achieving the environmental, financial, feasibility, and design objectives for the Rail Realignment Project. As you well know, the railroad tracks pose a significant threat to the bluffs, structures, commuters, and the public, and this crucial funding will advance the project’s timeline for being shovel ready and competitive for more critically needed funding.
3 October 17, 2022 Item 20
Opposition to NCTD Proposed State Funding Project Alternatives October 17, 2022
The City urges the NCTD Board to give strong consideration to the City’s objection to a request from NCTD proposing redirection of any funding earmarked for the Rail Realignment Project.
Sincerely,
Dwight Worden
Mayor
cc: Del Mar City Council
Ashley Jones, City Manager
Matt Tucker, NCTD Executive Director
4 October 17, 2022 Item 20
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Mayor Dwight Worden and Councilmember Dave Druker, Liaisons to the Parks and Recreation Committee
Prepared by Clem Brown, Interim Assistant City Manager
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: October 17, 2022
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Tree Donation Proposal from the Del Mar Foundation REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council Liaisons to the Parks and Recreation Committee request that the City Council: 1) Initially consider a tree donation proposal from the Del Mar Foundation (DMF); 2) Provide direction as to whether or not to add this as a City staff and Parks and Recreation Committee work plan item for FY 2022-23; and 3) Provide feedback for all parties to consider in evaluating and refining a final proposal for future Council consideration.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
In acknowledgement of its 40th anniversary, the DMF is proposing to donate forty (40) trees to the City of Del Mar to be planted in public spaces around the community (Attachment A). The proposal includes the planting of Torrey Pine and Monterey Cyprus saplings varying in height, but none taller than seven (7) feet. Proposed general locations for these new City trees may include Seacliff Park, Del Mar Canyon, Crest Canyon, and along the San Dieguito Lagoon and River. The Foundation’s proposal identifies the benefits of planting forty (40) new trees around the City, which include community beautification, more shade, cleaner air (from the removal of carbon dioxide) and support for the City’s efforts to address the climate crisis.
On September 14, 2022, a DMF representative attended the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee meeting and requested that the Committee consider adding the DMF’s proposal to the Parks and Recreation Committee agenda for consideration at their upcoming meeting in November. However, in accordance with Council Policy 204 – Advisory Committee Work Plans, any additions to the City work plan, including the work plan of City Committees, should first be considered by the City Council. 1 October 17, 2022 Item 21
City Council Agenda Report
Del Mar Foundation City Tree Donation Proposal
October 17, 2022
If the City Council is supportive of the DMF proposal in concept and directs for this to be added to the City work plan, it is envisioned that the DMF would work with staff and the Parks and Recreation committee to come back with a more refined proposal that would include the following: specific proposed locations for each tree; timing for installation; who would be responsible for acquiring/planting each tree; ongoing City obligations associated with the donation such as irrigation and maintenance responsibilities; and any other information identified by the Council as being important to consider or understand as part of this proposal. Staff from the City Manager’s office, Planning and Public Works Departments would be involved with the evaluation of this proposal, which is estimated to involve a combined total of approximately 20-30 hours of staff time.
To discuss and the DMF proposal and provide some initial feedback, the Parks and Recreation Council liaisons and City staff met with the DMF on September 28, 2022.
Initial concerns that were raised by City staff include the potential to impact public views depending on where the trees are planted; potential impacts to City staff/resources associated with obtaining the necessary approvals and proper care/maintenance of the trees after planting; and increasing the City’s water demand during the Governor’s Executive Order to reduce water by 20% due to increasing drought conditions.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no immediate fiscal impact or action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
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 PRIORITY PROJECTS:
This item is not an established City Council Goal or Priority for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – City Tree Donation Proposal from the Del Mar Foundation 2 October 17, 2022 Item 21
DMF Tree Donation Proposal
The Del Mar Foundation, in acknowledgement of its 40th anniversary, would like to donate 40 trees to the City of Del Mar to be planted in Cityapproved public locations, supplemented as necessary or desirable by locations controlled either privately or by other entities (for example, the 22nd DAA, along the north bank of the San Dieguito River).
To implement this donation, DMF would put together a specific project proposal, and a map of potential locations for City Evaluation.
Factors that would be included in the project plan:
Trees should not impact public viewsheds
Could consider private property or property controlled by other entities (e.g., 22nd DAA; SDRP JPA) where feasible
A phased implementation plan, to spread out costs, minimize impacts to staff, and optimize planting times;
Planting and watering costs (at least for the 1st year) should be included in the donation;
Recommend installations be done by a professional, or volunteers who are recognized as having the requisite knowledge and skills; City’s landscape contractor: West Coast Arborist estimates these costs, watering schedules and cost, and ongoing maintenance:
o $360/24-inch tree – installed with 1-year warranty with proper watering
Proper watering for new tree: deep watering 1x/week (10- 15 gals)
Staff to estimate 1st year water cost for 40 trees based on the 1x/week 10-15 gals/tree assumption (if assigned to
Park & Rec)
o After warranty period, tree added to City’s tree inventory o City trees maintained on a 3-year schedule
Staff to estimate for ongoing tree maintenance cost (if assigned to Park & Rec)
City Arborist John Barnett has cited the need for tree replacement in Seagrove Park, just south of the Tot Lot and Del Mar Canyon, an area where trees have been previously donated. Another prospective space in Attachment A 3 October 17, 2022 Item 21
the Del Mar owned sections of Crest Canyon and adjacent to the San Dieguito Lagoon.
This addition of 40 trees will bring added beauty, clear air, shade, and all the benefits that trees contribute, while also serving as an effective natural defense against climate change.
The trees
will not be planted in any view corridor
will not be “messy”
will be of various heights at maturity to suit the selected location will be selected from the list of approved trees for Del Mar will be drought tolerant
will come from locally donated trees and local nurseries will coordinate and not conflict with the San Diego Gas and Electric Company’s grant to plant trees in Del Mar
The optimal time for transplanting would be very late fall, 2022, January or February 2023.
The Foundation would likely “map” these trees on a document that would allow interested people to locate and see them, but is not interested in a designated “grove” or other massing of the donated trees. Potentially, small identifying markers on low stakes could mark some or all of the trees as appropriate, subject to review and approval by the City staff.
Attachment A 4 October 17, 2022 Item 21
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: October 17, 2022
SUBJECT: Consider Continuation of Remote Public Meetings in Compliance with Government Code Section 54953 (Assembly Bill 361)
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council: 1) Consider a Resolution (Attachment A) making the finding required by Government Code 54953 to continue with remote public meetings for the next thirty (30) days during the local emergency declared in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; and 2) Provide direction to staff on the timing for resuming in-person public meetings.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
City public meetings have been held remotely since the start of the COVID-19 global pandemic in March 2020 in compliance with Government Code Section 54953 (Assembly Bill 361), which waives certain provisions of the Brown Act and allows for remote public meetings if specific public safety findings are made by the City Council.
Under Government Code 54953, in order to hold remote public meetings during the declared state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City Council must adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) making at least one of the two findings: 1) state or local officials have recommended measures to promote social distancing; and/or 2) that meeting in-person would pose an imminent risk to the health and safety of attendees.
The City Council has reconsidered the circumstances surrounding the pandemic and has adopted resolutions to continue with remote public meetings every thirty (30) days as required by Government Code 54953. Most recently, Resolution 2022-62 was adopted October 3, 2022, to continue with remote meetings through November 2, 2022. These resolutions apply to all City public meetings including the City Council, Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and City advisory committees.
As mentioned, the City Council has been closely monitoring current and ever-changing public health circumstances. The City Council most recently considered the timing for resuming inperson public meetings on August 10, 2022. Based on the current public health status of the COVID-19 pandemic and the rise in positive cases and hospitalizations countywide at that 1 October 17, 2022 Item 22
City Council Agenda Report
Continuation of Remote Public Meetings in Compliance with AB361 October 17, 2022
time, the City Council decided to continue to meet remotely and to discuss the potential of returning to in-person meetings on October 17, 2022.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) assign each county a COVID-19 Community Level rating of low, medium, or high using data regarding hospitalizations and cases. Currently, San Diego County’s community COVID level is “low” according to the CDC.
While San Diego County data indicates COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths have been trending down in September and October, following a surge in cases over the summer months, it is unclear how case rates will change as we enter the winter. In 2021, COVID cases increased during the winter months peaking in early January at approximately 16,000 cases per day.
If the City Council determines that the public health circumstances warrant the City continuing with remote public meetings after November 2, 2022, when Resolution 2022-62 will expire, the Council should adopt the Resolution (Attachment A) extending remote public meetings through November 16, 2022.
Additionally, staff requests the Council provide direction regarding the timing for resuming inperson public meetings. A minimum of five (5) weeks is needed to prepare for in-person meetings in order to ensure a smooth transition. Activities leading up to resuming in-person meetings will include informing the public of the transition, preparing the facilities for the meetings, and revising public notices which includes information about the meeting location and are published well in advance of the meeting. Considering the time needed to prepare for in-person meetings and that there are only three regular Council meetings remaining for the 2022 calendar year, staff recommends that the Council consider the first meeting in January 2023 or sometime thereafter to resume in-person meetings.
At this time, all other cities in San Diego County are meeting in-person or are using a hybrid model with in-person and remote participation options available. Cities have held meetings remotely under Government Code 54953 as needed, usually due to outbreaks among City employees or elected officials.
Hybrid public meetings are not recommended for Del Mar due to the cost of the specialized equipment that would be needed, additional staff needed to support hybrid meetings, and complicated logistics of integrating in-person and remote participants. As always, “Red Dots” (written communications on agenda items) can be submitted by members of the public wishing to comment on agenda items who cannot or prefer not to attend in-person meetings.
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
The City Council declared a local emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic on March 14, 2020 and has been meeting remotely since that time. The City Council adopted Resolution 2021-45 on October 4, 2021; Resolution 2021-46 on November 1, 2021; Resolution 2021-49 on November 19, 2021; Resolution 2021-53 on December 13, 2021; Resolution 2022-01 on January 10, 2022; Resolution 2022-11 on February 7, 2022; Resolution 2022-18 on March 7, 2022; Resolution 2022-22 on April 4, 2022; Resolution 2022- 26 on May 2, 2022; Resolution 2022-29 on May 16, 2022; Resolution 2022-34 on June 6, 2 October 17, 2022 Item 22
City Council Agenda Report
Continuation of Remote Public Meetings in Compliance with AB361 October 17, 2022
2022; Resolution 2022-29 on June 20, 2022; Resolution 2022-52 on July 11, 2022; Resolution 2022-54 on July 25, 2022; Resolution 2022-57 on August 10, 2022; Resolution 2022-58 on September 6, 2022; and Resolution 2022-62 on October 3, 2022, allowing for the continuation of remote public meetings under the provisions established by AB 361.
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.
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 – Resolution Related to AB361 Thirty (30) Day Continuance 3 October 17, 2022 Item 22
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX
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 PLATFORM TO
FACILITATE REMOTE PUBLIC MEETINGS
WHEREAS, there exists the COVID-19 virus, which represents a serious public health threat; and
WHEREAS, on February 14, 2020, the San Diego County Health Officer declared a Local Health Emergency as a result of the COVID-19 virus; which was subsequently ratified by the Board of Supervisors on February 19, 2020; and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the State of California declared a State of Emergency as a result of the COVID-19 virus; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the President of the United States declared a national emergency as a result of the COVID-19 virus; and
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2020, the City of Del Mar adopted Resolution 2020-12 declaring a local emergency related to COVID-19 and has been meeting remotely since that time in accordance with multiple Executive Orders issued by the Governor waiving certain provisions of the Brown Act; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361) waiving certain provisions of the Brown Act during declared states of emergency and allowing for the continuation of remote public meetings if specific findings are made; and WHEREAS, on October 4, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 2021-45 making findings in accordance with AB 361, thereby waiving specific provisions of the Brown Act in order to continue the use of teleconference or a remote meeting platform to facilitate remote public meetings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency, determined that meeting in person would directly impact the ability of the members and the public to meet safely and adopted Resolution 2021-46 on November 1, 2021; Resolution 2021-49 on November 19, 2021; Resolution 2021-53 on December 13; 2021; Resolution 2022-01 on January 10, 2022; Resolution 2022-11 on February 7, 2022; Resolution 2022-18 on March 7, 2022; Resolution 2022-22 on April 4, 2022; Resolution 2022- 26 on May 2, 2022; Resolution 2022-29 on May 16, 2022; Resolution 2022-34 on June 6, 2022; Resolution 2022-39 on June 20, 2022; Resolution 2022-52 on July 11, 2022; Resolution 2022-54 on July 25, 2022; Resolution 2022-57 on August 10, 2022; Resolution 2022-58 on September 6, 2022; and Resolution 2022-62 on October 3, 2022; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2022, the City Council reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency and determined that meeting in person would directly impact the ability of the members and the public to meet safely.
4 October 17, 2022 Item 22
Resolution No. 2022-XX
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar that the City of Del Mar may continue to use teleconference or a remote meeting platform for the next thirty (30) days in accordance with AB 361 based on the following findings:
1. The City Council has held public meetings during the declared emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic and has determined by a majority vote of the City Council that as a result of the COVID-19 global pandemic, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of members and attendees.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that this resolution applies to the City Council, Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and all City advisory committees.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at the Regular meeting held this 17th day of October 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 17th day of October 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
________________________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/
City Clerk, City of Del Mar
5 October 17, 2022 Item 22
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: October 17, 2022
SUBJECT: Adoption of the 2023 City Council Meeting Schedule REQUESTED ACTIONS/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution (Attachment A) approving the 2023 City Council Meeting Schedule (Exhibit A to Attachment A) or provide direction to staff regarding changes to the proposed schedule.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
The Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section 2.20.040(A), states that, “Regular meetings of the City Council shall be held on the first and third Monday of each month,” and further states that, “The City Council may, by resolution, designate another date, time, and location for a regular meeting.”
2023 City Council Meeting Schedule
The DMMC, and the procedures adopted by the City Council through Resolution No. 2009-40, requires the City Council to annually adopt a meeting schedule for the following calendar year; identify any regular meeting dates to be cancelled; and designate any new dates as regular meetings. The proposed 2023 City Council Meeting Schedule is included with this report as Exhibit A to Attachment A. The 2023 City Council Meeting Calendar is included as Attachment B and visually displays the meeting schedule in calendar format. If the City Council finds that additional meetings are needed during the calendar year, the Council has the option of adding meetings by scheduling a special meeting or adjourning a regular meeting to a new date.
Proposed Changes to the 2023 Regular Meeting Schedule
Typically, the City Council meets twice per month in accordance with the schedule described in the DMMC as referenced above. However, it is not uncommon for the Council to modify the meeting schedule when deemed necessary, which is usually related to holidays. Staff is proposing the following changes to the 2023 City Council meeting schedule:
1 October 17, 2022 Item 23
City Council Agenda Report
City Council 2023 Meeting Schedule
October 17, 2022
1) The holiday week of July 4 is historically very busy for the City. As such, staff proposes that the City Council adjust the regular meeting schedule for July 2023, to hold meetings on July 10 and 24. This is consistent with changes made to the City Council meeting schedule in prior years.
2) Traditionally, the City Council has gone completely or mostly dark in August each year. Staff is proposing that the City Council go completely dark in August 2023.
If the City Council finds that a meeting in August is needed, the Council has the option to call a special meeting, which has been the case on occasion in prior years as urgent City matters may arise.
3) The week before and after the Thanksgiving holiday tends to be difficult for scheduling Council meetings due to holiday travel plans. As such, staff proposes one City Council meeting in November 2023, which would occur on November 13.
If the Council finds that additional meetings are needed, the City Council has the option to schedule a special meeting.
Special Meetings
In budget years, the City Council typically holds two separate special meeting workshops to prepare for the upcoming budget cycle. First, the City Council holds a Goals and Priorities Workshop in the first part of the calendar year to establish the City’s priorities prior to the budgeting process. Once the Mayor and Deputy Mayor are seated for 2023, staff will schedule a meeting to discuss possible dates and a format for the 2023 Council Goals and Priorities Workshop, which will be presented to the Council for discussion and feedback prior to scheduling.
Then, the City Council holds a City Council Budget Workshop in May to provide final budgetary direction to staff. The Fiscal Years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 Operating and Capital Budget will be adopted at a regular City Council meeting prior to July 1, 2023.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact or action to be taken 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.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Resolution Adopting the 2023 City Council Meeting Schedule Attachment B – Proposed 2023 City Council Meeting Calendar 2 October 17, 2022 Item 23
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL
MAR, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING REGULAR MEETINGS OF
THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE 2023 CALENDAR YEAR
WHEREAS, Del Mar Municipal Code Section 2.20.040 Regular Meetings, Subsection A, states that “Regular” meetings of the City Council shall be held on the first and third Monday of each month in the City Council Chambers; and WHEREAS, Del Mar Municipal Code Section 2.20.040 Regular Meetings, Subsection B, states that “The City Council may, by resolution, designate another date, time, and location for a regular meeting;” and
WHEREAS, Council adopted Resolution No. 2009-40 establishing procedures for setting the Council meeting schedule on an annual basis; and WHEREAS, it is important that the public know and understand when the City Council will conduct its regular meetings; and
WHEREAS, it is also important that there be flexibility in the schedule of regular meetings in order to complete the City’s business.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, that the City Council hereby designates the dates and times and location for the regular and special meetings for the 2023 calendar year and cancels any remaining regularly scheduled meetings pursuant to the Del Mar Municipal Code as described in Exhibit A to this Resolution, and directs the City Clerk to post the adopted schedule at City Hall and on the City’s website.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held this 17th day of October, 2022. _____________________________
Dwight Worden, Mayor
City of Del Mar
3 October 17, 2022 Item 23
Resolution No. 2022-___
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-__, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 17th day of October 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
4 October 17, 2022 Item 23
City of Del Mar
1050 Camino Del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 | 858.755.9313 | www.delmar.ca.us 2023 City Council Meeting Schedule
Regular Meetings are held at the Del Mar Town Hall, 1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, or remotely due to COVID-19, at 4:30 p.m. on the date shown, unless otherwise noted on the published agenda. Special Meetings and/or Workshops may be held in an alternate location or remotely during COVID-19 as posted on the agenda.
DATE MEETING TYPE
Monday, January 9, 2023 Regular
Monday, January 23, 2023 Regular
Monday, February 6, 2023 Regular
Tuesday, February 21, 2023 Regular
Monday, March 6, 2023 Regular
Monday, March 20, 2023 Regular
Monday, April 3, 2023 Regular
Monday, April 17, 2023 Regular
Monday, May 1, 2023 Regular
Monday, May 15, 2023 Regular
Monday, June 5, 2023 Regular
Monday, June 19, 2023 Regular
Monday, July 10, 2023 Regular
Monday, July 24, 2023 Regular
Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Regular
Monday, September 18, 2023 Regular
Monday, October 2, 2023 Regular
Monday, October 16, 2023 Regular
Monday, November 13, 2023 Regular
Monday, December 4, 2023 Regular
Monday, December 18, 2023 Regular
Adopted by Resolution 2022-XX
5 October 17, 2022 Item 23
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 30 31 26 27 28 26 27 28 29 30 31
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 31
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 1 2
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Key:
City Council Meeting
City Holiday
Special Meetings City Council Goal Setting Workshop & Budget Workshop Dates TBD Approved x/xx/2022
October November December
January February March
April May June
2023 Del Mar City Council Meeting Calendar
July August September
6 October 17, 2022 Item 23