Agenda, first session — Del Mar City Council, October 17, 2022

Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda

VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
October 17, 2022 City Council Meeting

INFORMATION RECEIVED

AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA

WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)
1 Melinda Gould
From: Heather Lindsey <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2022 10:04 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot: Item 9
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.

Dear City Council,
Thank you in advance for considering my thoughts.

At this time I am opposed to WildCoast being added to the list of non-profits able to use the Civic Center for special events. I agree with others in the community that feel that WildCoast should prove itself to be a good neighbor and aligned with the citizens and policies of Del Mar (which it may be), prior to allowing their use of the Civic Center.

Respectfully,
Heather Lindsey
Del Mar Resident
1 October 17, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: john imperato <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 10:52 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Dwight Worden; Terry Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; David Druker; Dan Quirk; Ashley Jones
Subject: Agenda Item 9 -Oppose Wildcoast's Use of City Resources Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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.

Dear Council Members,
Please do not let Wildcoast use our civic center for their events.

There are many groups that operate OUTSIDE of Del Mar with missions to impose upon Del Mar policies and practices that make Del Mar bear the brunt of environmental problems caused by those that live outside of Del Mar.

Del Mar has many external pressures from Surfrider Foundation, Coastal Commission and other environmental groups to adopt policies that are not in Del Mar's interest.

We should do the right thing for Del Mar regarding the environment, but should limit outside driving organizations.

Yes, if Wildcoast wishes to give a lecture by invitation to the Civic Center that would be great. Let's learn and see what they are about before granting them use of our Civic Center.

Please do NOT grant them use as a non profit.

Sincerely,
John Imperato, dedicated environmentalist as a surfer, fisherman and diver, and am a steward of the environment.

Santa Fe Ave, Del Mar
1 October 17, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Nancy Stoke <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 11:19 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Council Agenda Mon Oct 17th Item 9
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.

Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
At this time I am opposed to WildCoast being added to the list of non-profits able to use the Civic Center for special events.

While the Staff Report says the organization has recently moved to Del Mar and opened up an office, the only local address on the WildCoast website is in Imperial Beach. Serge Dedina is shown on the website as being the Executive Director of this organization, which probably explains the Imperial Beach address which is stated to have 11 employees.

Much of their work appears to be in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs); as best I know there is not a MPA off of Del Mar. Jill Gartman is listed on the website as Vice Chair for the San Dieguito Lagoon Committee and per city records her first term expires in 11/2023. Staff Report says WildCoast does have projects in the lagoon.

MISSION
WILDCOAST is an international team that conserves coastal and marine ecosystems and addresses climate change through natural solutions.

VISION
We envision a society in which ecologically sensitive and globally significant coastal and marine ecosystems and wildlife are conserved, restored and sustained for future generations.
1 October 17, 2022 Item 09
2 As a former STAC member who supports the Del Mar community’s opposition to Managed Retreat under any circumstances now or in the future, their use of “natural solutions” to address climate change as stated in their Mission Statement concerns me, as does the vision that globally significant coastal and marine ecosystems are “restored”. To my ear these are code words for the removal of seawalls protecting our beachfront homes and the resulting destruction of 600+ residential living units in the Beach Colony neighborhood. The Del Mar community has loudly expressed its opposition to such actions and their negative impacts.

When WildCoast has proven itself for at least 5 years to be a good citizen/neighbor of Del Mar then, and only then, should they be considered for approval to use the Civic Center for special events.

Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Stoke
Coast Blvd
2 October 17, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Margaret F <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 11:52 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: City Council Item 9 and Item 17 Red Dot
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.

Item 9 - Proposed Amendment to Civic Center Operations and Special Event Plan Related to Approved Users of the Civic Center Facilities https://www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_10172022- 3074 pg 181 of 400
At this time I am opposed to WildCoast being added to the list of non-profits able to use the Civic Center for special events.

Each of the other approved non-profit organizations have a long history in our community and in my mind have proven themselves to be good neighbors and earned the privilege of using the Civic Center for special events. (Remember we as residents haven’t been allowed to use the Civic Center to conduct City Council business for over 2 years, so why should a newcomer to town have more access than residents have?) Item 17 - Consideration of Adding a Building Electrification Ordinance to Staff’s Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Work Plan https://www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_10172022-3074 pg 325 of 400 1 October 17, 2022 Item 09
2 The Mayor is quoted in the current Sandpiper (Volume 6 Number 8 October 2022) on page 7 Question 6 saying he totally supports updating the Climate Action Plan (CAP) “…and making it legally binding.” I respectfully disagree with Mayor Dwight Worden and believe that residents and businesses should be able to work towards the worthy goals of the Climate Action Plan but should not be legally bound by them. Making the Plan or any portion thereof legally binding at this time when research and innovation are constantly bringing forth new information and solutions is a big mistake. It is too soon and unnecessary to legalize the Plan at this time.

I do concur with Steve Quirk’s response in the same Sandpiper issue Question 6; he supports updating our CAP “…to keep up with the many significant and rapidly occurring advances in science and technology.” The community supported Council goals for this year that had many other priorities for staff time and expense. To shift priorities at this time is not necessary. Please do not approve adding the processing of a building electrification ordinance to staff’s FY 2022-2023 work plan.

My thoughts… there are a number of items in the Climate Action Plan that feel like a real over-reach by government into our private lives. Shouldn’t we have the ability to choose a gas or electric means of heating our homes? I’m fine with working towards the goals of a Climate Action Plan; I draw the line when the proposals in the CAP become legally binding. My request of Council is to not race down the path of legally binding.

I concur and agree with the above statements.

Margaret Frace
Del Mar Resident
2 October 17, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Linda Chisari <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2022 1:35 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Frank Chisari
Subject: Red Dot for October 17 Council Meeting, Item #17 (Building Electrification) 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.

October 15, 2022
To the Del Mar City Council:

Our Sustainability Advisory Committee has worked long and hard to come up with a Building Electrification Plan that will help our village begin to address the dire consequences of global warming. This is a plan that will only apply to new construction or extensive remodels, not to existing homes.

Now it’s your turn to act. We ask that you vote to assure that this plan gets top priority on the City’s 2023 work plan.

Climate change is not waiting; we cannot afford to postpone this action any longer.

With kind, worried regards,
Linda and Frank Chisari
1010 Crest Road
1 October 17, 2022 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: James Wang <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2022 1:52 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot for Item 17 (Building Electrification) 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.

Mayor Worden, Deputy Mayor Martinez, and Del Mar City Council:

Thank you for your consideration of a Building Electrification (BE) ordinance.

I was Vice-Chair of the Encinitas Environmental Commission when BE was first considered in Encinitas. The Commission's report (link below) lists many reasons for BE. Since your SAC report is already comprehensive, I'll add a few that make the make the justification for a BE ordinance even more compelling:
 Inventories typically list buildings as the 2nd or 3rd largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. However, these inventories are downstream of the meter. To get there, methane gas travels through miles of pipeline with thousands, or more likely, millions, of valves and welds; all of these are subject to cracks and leaks. Even if the leakage is only a small percentage, the 80x potency of methane amplifies its harm to the climate.  AB3232 and EO B-30-15 require emissions from the building sector to fall to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. From the bill text: “Decarbonizing California’s buildings is essential to achieve the state’s greenhouse gas emission reduction goals at the lowest possible cost.”  The hard work of drafting a new ordinance is greatly reduced by taking advantage of the ordinances of the 50+ California cities that already have such ordinances.  Similarly, the reach code application (including the cost-effectiveness study) and the public outreach are aided by work done by other cities.
 Furthermore, SDG&E has expert staff dedicated to helping cities achieve reach codes.

According to Crystal Najera (Sustainability Manager of Encinitas), they are a tremendous help.  The City of Del Mar has declared a Climate Emergency. This emergency is not symbolic; it's not just words on paper. It's real, and it demands real action. Given the resources available and the possible consequences, a BE ordinance costs little.  A BE ordinance is a meaningful step towards Del Mar's climate mitigation. Our climate situation was brought on by everyone, and it requires everyone to solve it.  Although a BE ordinance is not on the staff's current work plan, emergencies are not scheduled events. They demand attention when they arise.
 The cost impact of BE on new home builders is reduced by the rebates available from the new IRA bill. Given the generous size of those rebates, electrification may be less expensive than gas.

Please move forward with your Building Electrification ordinance. Even if we did not have a Climate Emergency, BE makes sense for health, public safety, and cost reasons alone.

Thank you.
2 October 17, 2022 Item 17
2 James Wang
Encinitas
Encinitas Environmental Commission report on Building Electrification:
https://encinitas.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=7&event_id=2285&meta_id=104762 3 October 17, 2022 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: Sarah Krietor
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2022 7:56 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Fwd: Oct 17 City Council Meeting: Agenda Item/Support BE Proposal from SAC See red dot for BE item.

Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Rose Ann <[email protected]>
Date: October 16, 2022 at 6:52:24 AM PDT
To: Sarah Krietor <[email protected]>
Cc: Ashley Jones <[email protected]>
Subject: Oct 17 City Council Meeting: Agenda Item/Support BE Proposal from SAC 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.

Re: Del Mar City Council Consideration on Oct. 17, 2022 Building Electrification Proposal from the Sustainability Advisory Committee.

Seventy-two years ago my father-in-law, Milton Sharp, wrote the ad below in favor of oil heat. He pictured his family’s home and members in the ad stating that the safest form of heat was oil.

Now it is our generation’s turn to inform the public on the safest form of energy to protect our planet:
electric. The difference in science in the past 72 years is that we are now in a full blown climate crisis and science knows that gas, oil and other forms of petro chemicals are at the root cause of this crisis.

We can no longer ignore the science and the dramatic changes that we see first hand in our weather and harm to our ocean, air and land resources. I urge your immediate and unanimous vote to keep our families and our planet safe and to support the recommendations of the Sustainability Action Committee.

Respectfully submitted,
Rose Ann Sharp
834 Crest Road
Del Mar, Ca. 92014
4 October 17, 2022 Item 17
2 5 October 17, 2022 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2022 10:13 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot: Item 17
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.

To Whom It May Concern:

I am in support of updating the CAP. I am opposed to making it legally binding. I believe this is just at the discussion phase, but I wanted to reach out.

Thank you so much.

Warmly,
Lucille Lindsey
6 October 17, 2022 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: Dolores Jamison <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2022 11:48 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot — Oct. 17 Council Agenda, Item #17
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.

To: Del Mar City Council
Re: October 17 Council Agenda, Item #17
Dear Mayor Worden & Council Members:

On October 17, the City’s Sustainability Advisory Committee (SAC) will present their proposal for a Del Mar building code change to have new home construction be all electric. As a former member of SAC, I know that this transition is an important recommendation in meeting our Climate Action Plan goals, and I would urge you to implement this change. Over the last few years, many cities have transitioned to all-electric in new homes and major remodels. Last year, Encinitas and Solana Beach both adopted new building electrification codes. Building electrification will not only lead to a reduction in greenhouse gases; by reducing the number of gas cooktops, it will reduce health risks and indoor pollution. Many chefs who were dedicated to cooking with gas have now switched to induction cooktops, with their more precise temperature control.

I hope you will vote to take this important next step for Del Mar and the achievement of its climate change goals.

Sincerely,
Dolores Davies Jamison
Crest Road
Del Mar
7 October 17, 2022 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: Peter Zahn <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2022 11:42 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: 10/17/22 City Council, Agenda Item #17 - Red Dot re: Building Elect Ordinance/Workplan
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers –
I am a former Deputy Mayor and Councilmember in Solana Beach. Also I was the initial chair of SB’s Climate Action Commission (CAC). CAC’s Decarbonization Strategies Subcommittee, which I chaired, developed and proposed BE requirements to our Council, put together and led the city’s BE workshop, and conducted other outreach activities. Through one of the Commissioners, CAC found a pro bono consultant that the city subsequently engaged to guide the development of its BE ordinance.

Del Mar has been forward-thinking on climate and other environmental issues over the years. At one time the SAB was known in our region as a body that generated cutting edge information and solutions to cities and concerned individuals throughout our region. It’s refreshing to see SAB’s successor, SAC, re-activated – with highly capable members and liaisons – and making a detailed proposal for including a BE ordinance in Del Mar’s Workplan.

I’ll leave it to others to talk to the urgency of our climate crisis. Thankfully, Del Mar recognized the urgency with the adoption of a climate emergency declaration. And your city is a founding member of the Clean Energy Alliance, which provides most Del Mar residents with electricity, delivered to the grid with a higher renewable content than SDG&E’s, generally at a lower price.

Like the city of Solana Beach, Del Mar is almost completely built out. That’s why Solana Beach’s BE requirements, adopted in late 2021 and approved by the CEC this year, apply to substantial remodels, as well as new construction.

Given the urgency of the climate crisis, I urge Del Mar to include in its workplan, with high priority, preparation of an ordinance that requires all new construction and major remodels – including ADU’s – to be all-electric with no gas infrastructure installed, as Encinitas and many other cities have. Of course, that doesn’t mean that a substantial remodel project must remove existing gas infrastructure.

I understand that SAC recommended an exception upon request for certain types of restaurants. This has been implemented in other California cities and makes sense.

Key points to consider:
8 October 17, 2022 Item 17
2 1. Del Mar has already come a long way in laying the foundation for BE outreach and, ultimately, an effective ordinance. In addition to the broad items the Council has adopted, the SAB has already provided numerous opportunities for public comment, and developed a draft ordinance that will not need much more work.

2. Pursuing BE requirements is not as expensive or risky an endeavor as Staff asserts; especially with (a) access to pro bono or low cost consulting assistance; (b) 60+ cities in California alone have BE ordinances – it’s a well-worn path; (c) SAC’s expertise and willingness to relieve Staff of much of the burden; and (d) top-notch state and private resources are available to assist the city and assure compliance with CEC’s requirements.

3. State building code revisions are making it easier to adopted BE requirements. Many aspects of BE are becoming standard, requiring less up front preparation and allowing for expedited state approval.

I again urge you to prioritize an ordinance with strong BE requirements, as recommended by SAC, in Del Mar’s workplan.

Respectfully,
Peter Zahn
Solana Beach, CA
9 October 17, 2022 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: Daria Flores <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2022 3:13 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Regarding Agenda #17, Proposed Electrification Plan 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.

To the Del MarCity Council,
The Sustainability Advisory Committee's Building Electrification Plan is a significant action Del Mar can take to combat greenhouse gases and to protect the health of our residents. I urge the Council to approve this plan and make it a top priority in the coming year.

Thank you,
Daria Flores
399 Stratford Ct, #213
Del Mar
10 October 17, 2022 Item 17
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
I am deeply grateful that Council has restarted the Sustainability Advisory Committee and provided the opportunity for the SAC and staff to bring a Building Electrification Ordinance proposal to you for consideration.

As you know, we are at a critical tipping point and effective climate action is urgently needed. The UN has stated that cutting methane is the strongest lever we have to slow climate change over the next 25 years. The term “natural gas” is a misnomer. Natural gas is essentially methane, a fossil fuel and a powerful greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide. Electrifying & switching to clean renewable energy to power homes and buildings is an essential tool to combat this climate emergency.

With respect to the proposed ordinance, I’d like to emphasize the following points. 1) Please include major remodels into the ordinance.
2) Please do not exempt gas stoves or cooking. – Here are just a few reasons why:
a) Compared to gas, induction is more efficient, cleaner, safer, healthier, provides better temperature control, and lots more. “Induction cooktops and ranges generally outperform every other kind of range in Consumer Reports tests.” Consumer Reports b) Michelin chefs, Bonappetit and Epicurious magazines, and so many more food experts already tout the benefits and attraction of induction.
c) Gas stoves are bad for your health – In addition to many research publications, 114 advocate groups including many coalitions of doctors and medical professionals have urged the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to take action to protect consumers from the harmful effects of air pollution from cooking with gas. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG)
d) Gas stoves leak, even when they are turned off – According to researchers at Stanford, gas stoves release 2.6 million tons of methane each year, more than three-quarters of which leak from the appliances when they aren’t even in use. These leaked emissions are roughly equal to the amount produced by five hundred thousand cars . e) For more reasons why, see the many resources and free induction cooktop loaner programs which are available today.
3) Please do not delay. Staff has expressed concerns associated with staff time. In an effort to alleviate some of these concerns, please note that:
a) Many pro bono consultants from many different organizations are available to assist staff. b) Several people in Del Mar’s SAC are respected local experts and have already shown their dedication and willingness to help get this job done.
c) Over 60 jurisdictions in California have passed BE ordinances, including Encinitas and Solana Beach. There are many examples and open sources of information.

Thank you for your consideration.

Warm regards,
Mary M Yang, PhD
Former Chair and Member, Solana Beach Climate Action Commission 1 October 17, 2022 Item 17
Volunteer, San Diego Building Electrification Coalition Board Member, Climate Action Campaign
2 October 17, 2022 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: Bruce Bekkar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 10:26 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red dot - Item 17, building electrification
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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.

Dear members of the Del Mar City Council:

I am writing in support of Item 17, consideration of adding a BE ordinance to staff’s 2023 work plan. Along with members of the Sustainability Advisory Committee, I strongly agree it is time to move away from the ongoing burning of fossil fuels in homes and businesses. Measures like this will not only reduce the ongoing burden of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, but will immediately reduce indoor air pollution and help protect the health of local citizens, especially those most vulnerable- the elderly, children, those with cardio-respiratory illnesses, and pregnant women.

Viable alternatives to gas exist, and I can personally attest to the many benefits of a ductless mini split system and my induction cooktop. Costs are declining and federal dollars are now available thanks to the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act. Building electrification is a classic example of a “win-win” solution that elected officials can bring about.

Have you noticed how many Teslas and other EVs you see around town and elsewhere? The transportation sector is rapidly electrifying, and, as evidenced across California and elsewhere, our building sector is next. Please demonstrate leadership by approving and then fast-tracking this Item to help us rapidly move to a better, and far safer, future for all.

Respectfully,
Bruce Bekkar, MD
Spinnaker Court
1 October 17, 2022 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: Nancy Stoke <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 11:17 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Council Agenda Oct 17th Item 17
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.

Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
The Mayor is quoted in the current Sandpiper (Volume 6 Number 8 October 2022 on page 7 Question 6) saying he totally supports updating the Climate Action Plan (CAP) “…and making it legally binding.” I respectfully disagree with Mayor Dwight Worden and believe that residents and businesses should be able to work towards the worthy goals of the Climate Action Plan but should not be legally bound by them. Making the Plan or any portion thereof legally binding at this time when research and innovation are constantly bringing forth new information and solutions is a big mistake. It is too soon and unnecessary to legalize the Plan at this time.

The community supported Council goals for this year that had many other priorities for staff time and expense. To shift priorities at this time is not necessary. Please do not approve adding the processing of a building electrification ordinance to staff’s FY 2022-2023 work plan.

Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Stoke
Coast Blvd
2 October 17, 2022 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 11:18 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Dwight Worden; Tracy Martinez
Cc: David Druker; Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk
Subject: Red Dot: Support to Agenda Item #17: Adding Building Electrification to Staff Work Plan for 2022-23
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.

Dear Mayor Worden, Deputy Mayor Martinez, and CouncilMembers, I am writing in support of item #17 on the agenda "Consideration of Adding a Building Electrification Ordinance to Staff’s Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Work Plan." As described in the meeting packet, the Sustainability Advisory Committee has been hard at work for several years already, discussing the ins and out of Building Electrification for Del Mar and providing educational material to residents and elected officials.

Specifically when reading the staff report prepared by Clem Brown, Interim Assistant City Manager:
"Building electrification is the process of requiring buildings to be all-electric and has been adopted by over 60 cities in the State of California. SAC proposes that Del Mar adopt a BE ordinance for the following reasons:
- Del Mar adopted a Climate Emergency Resolution in 2020; - Buildings are the second highest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the City of Del Mar (primarily from the burning of natural gas to provide energy for space and water heating); - Avoids cost associated with installing new natural gas infrastructure, and since all new construction, both residential and non-residential, must be equipped with rooftop solar under the current State code, combined with electric appliances with higher efficiency, it leads to lower operating costs;
- Improves public safety by prohibiting the installation of new gas infrastructure; - Provides public health benefits and improved indoor air quality through the elimination of natural gas combustion; and - Helps achieves the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) goals." Thank you for your consideration,
Valerie Dufort-Roy
Klish Way
3 October 17, 2022 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: Juliana Maxey-Allison <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 11:41 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot re the Sustainability Committee's proposal 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.

Re: tonight’s City Council meeting: I fully support the Sustainability Committee’s building electrification (BE) proposal to be added to the city’s work plan.

Julie Maxey-Allison
10 Street
4 October 17, 2022 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: K Lare <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2022 9:16 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Dwight Worden; David Druker; Terry TG. Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk
Cc: Eddie Lare; Steven Crowe
Subject: Del Mar City Council Meeting 10-18-22 Item 18
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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.

Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
My husband and I write tonight in support of the Crowe's application for an Encroachment Permit at 111 Sea Cliff Way. This application is to plant a hedge along the glass fence that runs along the north side of their property to give them privacy.

We have both lived in Del Mar for over 30 years and have owned 161 Sea Cliff Way (then 526 Stratford Court Unit B) since 1992. In that time, we have seen this alley evolve and go through many changes and the Crowe's home at the end of the street has added significantly to the look of Sea Cliff Way. In fact, the area in question actually used to be a small enclosure along a falling down fence that housed the trash cans for the Proctor Property.

As we understand it, the Crowe's believed that this area was a part of their property or that the builder had gotten approval to put plants on the city property and in fact a berm was built around a planter to allow just that. When it first went in we asked the builder (Jim McMenniman at Zephyr) about it he said they had gotten approval from the City to plant it. It seems now that this was not the case.

We are in support of you agreeing to the de novo hearing on this matter and are also in support of the City Council granting the Crowe's application for an encroachment permit to plant the hedge along the fence line as long as they agree to keep it trimmed to the height of the glass fence that is there now.

We also suggest that the Crowe's work with the neighbors who are impacted by the new tree that has been planted in the sight line of several of the homes on Sea Cliff Way to also keep it trimmed so it is not in the view corridor of the homes. Alternatively the Crowe's can relocate the tree further away from the street thus maintaining views for all of the homes on Sea Cliff Way.

In reading the Staff's report on the application for the encroachment permit, we were surprised at the findings. In contrast to the staff, we feel it will add to the appearance of the alley, not take significant public land and definitely will not change the character of the area as many homes in the neighborhood have hedges.

Thank you for your time on this matter.

Respectfully submitted,
Karen & Eddie Lare
161 Sea Cliff Way
1 October 17, 2022 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Item 18, Application for Minor Encroachment Permit, October 17, 2022 City Council hearing
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2022 9:02 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box <[email protected]>
Cc: Dwight Worden-Private <[email protected]>; 'Tracy Martinez' <[email protected]>; Terry TG.

Gaasterland <[email protected]>; David Druker-Private <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Item 18, Application for Minor Encroachment Permit, October 17, 2022 City Council hearing 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.

Item 18
Dear Honorable Mayor and other distinguished members of the City Council:

I write in support of the City Council granting a de novo hearing on Steven Crowe’s application for an Encroachment Permit to plant a hedge in the 3ft. wide public right of way that is adjacent to the north side of his property located at 111 Sea Cliff Way. I also write in support of that Application.

I have been a resident of Del Mar and have owned homes in Del Mar for over 20 years. I currently reside at and jointly own the home at 551 Stratford Court which is located across the street and close to the entrance on to Sea Cliff Way as well as a home in Del Mar Woods. I walk Sea Cliff Way on my way to the upper bluff in Del Mar which I walk typically several times a week. I write as a resident and property owner in Del Mar and neighbor of the Crowes.

First, I believe the City Council should grant a de novo hearing on the Application, which is the only issue currently before the Council. Mr. Crowe’s application concerns the important issue of balancing family privacy in our densely populated city and the public interest in the appearance of a public right-of-way and merits a thoughtful de novo review by the City Council. In addition, the City Council should not confirm the staff’s position because the denial letter does not rely on adequate grounds for denial and does not entertain any solution with conditions as permitted by DMMC 23.28.070D which the City Council should consider. Therefore, the Application should be re-considered at a de novo public hearing.

The staff’s letter states that the staff cannot make three of the six findings required by DMMC section

23.28.70C for granting the requested Minor Encroachment, specifically findings 3, 4 and 6.

These findings that the staff stated it cannot make are as follows:
“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; ………….. 1 October 17, 2022 Item 18
2 6. The proposed Encroachment will not convert significant areas of public property to private use… I will address each provision in turn:

The proposed Encroachment will not have an adverse impact on the welfare of the community or on the community's appearance or aesthetics;
The staff does not explain how it is that the proposed Encroachment will have an adverse impact on the welfare of the community or the community’s appearance or aesthetics, but the finding should be made. First, a hedge would improve the appearance and aesthetics of the public right-of-way. Currently the 3ft wide right-of-way is a strip of unimproved dirt to the south side of Sea Cliff Way. When it rains it is unimproved mud. Planting and maintenance of greenery at the expense of the homeowner would improve the appearance and aesthetics of the right-of-way by substituting greenery for mud. A hedge would also improve aesthetics of the area in other ways. Approximately 15 linear feet of the eastern portion of the right-of-way looks onto pool equipment and the interior of the living area of the Crowe’s home as well as the pool area. The Crowes have a privacy interest in preventing the viewing of their living spaces of course, but the public also has an interest in having this area shielded from view. A hedge is preferable to viewing pool equipment and the public is not or should not be interested in looking into a private living or pool area of the home. Thus, the hedge would improve the appearance and aesthetics of this strip for all concerned. The hedge could be limited to a height of 6ft. from grade and the encroachment permit could be conditioned on the owner’s maintenance of the 6ft. maximum height from grade. Notably, there is not enough room for an interior hedge around the pool equipment.

As to the portion of the right of way that is west of the pool equipment area and approximately 40 ft. long, a 6ft. hedge along the right of way would address the mud problem, shield the view into the Crowe’s pool area (which benefits the public as well as the Crowes) and is preferable to a higher hedge that the Crowes could erect on their ’ property. For the same reasons, there is no basis for the finding that a hedge along the right of way would “have an adverse impact on the welfare of the community” and the staff either does not place or explain its reliance on this part of the provision.

The proposed Encroachment will not cause an unnecessary change in the character of the community The staff cites no reason for its failure to make this finding and this finding would be amply supported. There is no credible argument that the proposed Encroachment will cause any change to the character of the community, rather, it would conform to the character of the community. Across Sea Cliff Way directly north of the Crowes’ residence is a property that has a 6ft. hedge and wall which protects the public from having to see into the owners’ property as they walk down to the upper bluff and protects the property owners’ privacy with no expense to anyone’s views of the ocean, which is steps away from Sea Cliff Way. North of the hedged property on the north side of Sea Cliff Way, there are just a string of garages facing Sea Cliff Way and the right-of-way and so no neighbor’s view would be affected by a 6 ft. hedge on the Crowes’ property. On the south side (the side where the hedge is proposed), the permission to plant and maintain the hedge could easily be conditioned on its continued maintenance at 6ft. or less under DMMC 23.28.070D, enforceable through a summary no-fee procedure at the city. Thus, no south side views would be impacted. There are many hedges in Del Mar. Some of them impinge on peoples’ views. The proposed Encroachment would not, it would instead just improve the area.

The proposed Encroachment will not convert significant areas of public property to private use.

The staff does not explain how it is that the proposed Encroachment would convert “significant areas” of public property to private use. The area of the right of way in question is not “significant” in size or public use. It is a small narrow area to the south of the path along Sea Cliff Way that leads to the upper bluff. No one walks on it as there is enough room on the concrete portion of the path of Sea Cliff Way to walk to and from the upper bluff.

Thus, there is no basis for the staff’s failure to make the findings in DMMC section 23.28.70C that it states it cannot make.

The staff’s reliance on DMMC 23.28.040 and City Council Policy #110 is also inappropriate. 2 October 17, 2022 Item 18
3 DMMC 23.28.40 provides:

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. (emphasis added).

For all the reasons stated above, the planting of a hedge kept at limited height would have a number of “associated public benefit[s] to the community” and that area in particular. This renders 23.28.040 inapplicable.

City Council Policy #110 “Private Encroachments into Public Rights-of-Way,” is also inapplicable. It provides in pertinent part:
“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; …...” (emphasis added).

City Council Policy #110 is completely inapplicable. It applies when the area behind a hedge (so called “walled off area”) is public. Here the area behind the hedge is the private home of the Crowes. The policy by its terms does not relate to the hedge itself and no one really cares who owns the hedge as long as it is maintained at an appropriate height.

Finally, the staff’s apparent dismissal of DMMC 23.28.070D should be revisited by the City Council in a de novo hearing. It provides:
“……………
D. The decision maker may impose conditions of approval on the Encroachment Permit as deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare and to preserve the intended use of the City Right-of-Way or Easement, and to ensure compliance with the findings supporting such approval” The City Council can easily condition the erection of a hedge at its continued maintenance at a maximum of 6 ft. from grade and allow a summary, no fee procedure for its enforcement, or impose any conditions that will protect the public interest and at the same time support a citizen’s privacy.

For all the reasons stated, I urge the City Council to grant a de novo review and then to grant Mr. Crowe’s application at a de novo hearing.

Respectfully submitted,
Shirli Weiss
551 Stratford Ct.

Del Mar, CA 92014
858.449.4850
3 October 17, 2022 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: Karl Willert <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2022 2:09 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Tracy Martinez; David Druker; Dwight Worden; Dan Quirk Cc: Ashley Jones; Karen Brindley
Subject: Red Dot for DM City Council Meeting Agenda Item 18 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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.

Dear Councilmembers and Mayor,
This letter is submitted for Item 18 on the City Council agenda for October 17, 2022.

The plans for 111 Sea Cliff Way, including the Landscape Plan, were subject to multiple Design Review Board hearings when Zephyr proposed the home. The project was eventually approved by the DRB after multiple revisions and hearings.

The final plan, including the Landscape Plan, preserved ocean views of multiple neighbors to the east, including the primary living room views of the ocean at our home at 151 Sea Cliff Way and our neighbors at 141 Sea Cliff Way and 151 6th St.

The plan also ensured open public views of the ocean as you walk west toward the Bluff along Sea Cliff Way.

The approved plan included a glass fence on the north boundary of the property with specific plantings.

When the developer Zephyr Corporation finished the home at 111 Sea Cliff Way and repaved the alley with a ribbon gutter, as they were obligated to do, they deviated from the DRB-approved Landscape Plan as follows:
• North of the glass fence, Zephyr left a strip of alley unpaved along the border of 111 Sea Cliff Way. The dirt strip is approximately 40 inches wide plus an 8-inch curb and about 60 feet long, by our measurements. • To their credit, Zephyr planted this strip as an attractive garden with healthy 30” tall drought resistant plants that augmented both the alley and the home.
• Zephyr placed the glass fence along the border in a location and height (on top of a retaining wall) that differed from the notes and detail on the DRB-approved Landscape Plan. • Zephyr extended the 30” tall drought resistant plants to the east along the north side of the fence.

The current owner of 111 Sea Cliff Way seems to have believed they owned the entire garden north of their glass fence and removed all the mature plants with the intention to replace them with a thick high privacy hedge and a tree.

Now, the empty dirt strip at the end of Sea Cliff Way needs a solution. Further, the new tree and new hedge already planted threaten the much negotiated ocean views of multiple neighbors, including our home at 151 Sea Cliff Way. 1 October 17, 2022 Item 18
2 The newly planted Crape Myrtle tree and hedge will inevitably grow into our due west view at 151 Sea Cliff Way and will block our view as they mature. Healthy Crape Myrtle trees grow to 30 feet tall and 30 feet wide in a “V” shape.

The current situation at 111 Sea Cliff Way emphasizes that DRB approved Landscape Plans are a meaningless way to preserve ocean views or ensure adherence to other Design Review Ordinances unless covenants are recorded. Nothing prevents an owner from replacing much negotiated landscaping after a home has been completed and signed off.

Our alley neighbors are now left with an ugly strip of dirt that tosses dust into the eastbound ocean breeze and with inevitable view loss due to an existing new tree and hedge.

Solving these two problems today is effectively an extension of the DRB review of this property. This is especially true because Zephyr did not adhere to the DRB approved plans.

We propose the following simple solution:
• Require that the plantings on the dirt owned by the city be replaced. • Allow the plantings to confer some amount of privacy to the home’s backyard. • Require that all plantings north of the articulated fence along the north border of 111 Sea Cliff Way, including the tree and the hedge on the privately owned dirt, be trimmed by the owner to a height no higher than the existing glass fence. • Record this requirement to maintain the entire hedge and tree at a height no higher than the current fence so that the height restriction shall be followed into the future by any subsequent owner.

We suggest that the Council consider sending this project to the DRB for their review since the developer did not adhere to the DRB approved plans. We note the fence reaches 8 feet in height at the end of the alley and question, does this require a variance from the Planning Commission?
Finally, we question whether the utility equipment in the alley way needs to be moved onto the private property.

Sincerely,
Karl Willert
151 Sea Cliff Way
Del Mar, CA 92014
PS: Please note that 111 Sea Cliff Way went through DRB review as 522 Stratford Court and was processed together with 516 Stratford Court as a condominium property. A covenant to trim hedges to the height of the perimeter fence is recorded for 516 Stratford Court with the City.
2 October 17, 2022 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: Reisner, Ralph <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2022 2:49 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Danute
Subject: Item 18, Oct 18 - appeal from encroachment permit denial Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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.

Dear Council Members -
We reside and own a property in the general area of 111 SeaCliff Lane. Additionally, we frequently have occasion to pass by that property on our regular walks along the bluffs.

We respectfully urge that the denial of the encroachment application be reversed and the applied for encroachment permit be grated on the following grounds:
(1) the proposed privacy hedge would not in any way degrade the pubic’s right of way nor the public's enjoyment of the adjacent walking trail;
(2) the proposed hedge would not interfere with the views of adjacent property owners; (3) the hedge would protect core privacy interests of the residents of 111 SeaCliff Lane; (4) the proposed hedge would enhance the aesthetics of the adjacent area.

The Crows (the owners of 111 Sea Cliff Lane ) have in the past demonstrated their their strong support for environmental causes including in particular the Friends of Del Mar whose mission is the preservation of the the public’s enjoyment of the bluffs. Their application to plant a hedge adjacent to bluff’s walking path is consistent with their commitment to enhancing the public’s full enjoyment of the bluffs.

Respectfully,
Ralph and Danute Reisner
268 Surfiew Ct,
Del Mar,Ca.92014
the enjoyment of any adjoining structures for for would not depreciate the publics and the owners of the subject property be installation of a privacy hedge adjacent to city property at the end of a dead-would be the public intest and not interfere not only enhance
an area adjacent to we support the Crowes plan to install a privacy hedge at the end of their dead-end street, particularly since it does not interfere with any neighbor's view of the ocean, and we appreciate their financial support of the Friends of Del Mar Bluffs lawsuit against NCTD which has prevented their proposed six-foot chainlink fence from being built in Del Mar.
1 October 17, 2022 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: Reisner, Ralph <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2022 2:00 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Danute
Subject: Item 18 application to reverse denial of encroachment application 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.

Dear Council Members :

We previously sent the Council a communication urging that it reverse the staff’s denial of the application by 111SeaCliff Way for encroachment associated with proposed plantings on City property. Our earlier note to the council in support of the application for reversal which we hereby affirm , should have included our recommendation that the Council’s approval of the application for encroachment should be contingent on the preservation of neighbor’s views .

As noted by the applicant's application, plants in this area have great potential to add to the beauty of the alley and also confer much needed privacy for 111 Sea Cliff Way. At the same time, the plantings should be designed and memorialized with a maintenance plan to ensure that future view loss for properties to the east will be avoided.

Respectfully,
Ralph and Danute Reisner
268 Surfview Ct.
1 October 17, 2022 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Sea Cliff Way Hedge
From: Karen Mercaldo <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Sea Cliff Way Hedge
Date: October 12, 2022 at 7:00:33 AM PDT
To: Steven Crowe <[email protected]>
HI Steve,
Yes, I support the installation of a hedge along your fence. In addition to providing privacy for you, I believe it will improve the aesthetics of the alley.

Best, Karen Mercaldo
2 October 17, 2022 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: Steven Crowe <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2022 5:11 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Fwd: Privacy privet hedge
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.

Red Dot
Begin forwarded message:

From: Bud Marx <[email protected]>
Subject: Privacy privet hedge
Date: October 12, 2022 at 11:02:49 AM PDT
To: Steven Crowe <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], Kathi Luke <[email protected]> To Whom It May Concern:

The purpose of this email is to express our unequivocal support for the Crowe proposal to plant a privacy and decorative hedge on the narrow City strip of property adjacent to their side yard and home. We see no downside to this proposal as it will enhance the area appearance and provide a modest privacy buffer from the very heavy foot traffic from Stratford Court to the ocean path. As planned, it will not impede the foot traffic nor will it impinge in any significant manner upon our view corridors nor any others, in our judgment. Sincerely,
Oscar and Kathleen Marx
Sent from my iPhone
3 October 17, 2022 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: Steven Crowe <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2022 5:12 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Fwd: Hedge on Sea Cliff Way - Crowe Property - REVISED 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.

Red Dot
Begin forwarded message:

From: Brian Carter <[email protected]>
Subject: Hedge on Sea Cliff Way - Crowe Property - REVISED Date: October 10, 2022 at 5:46:05 PM PDT
To: Steven Crowe <[email protected]>
I have no objection to the proposed hedge provided the owner keeps the hedge at or below the top of the fence.

Brian Cater
159 6th Street
Del Mar, CA
4 October 17, 2022 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: Steven Crowe <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2022 5:12 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Fwd: Sea Cliff Alley landscaping
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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.

Red Dot.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Patricia Maas <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Sea Cliff Alley landscaping
Date: October 10, 2022 at 4:53:49 PM PDT
To: "Gabriel P." <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Hi Steve,
I’m sorry I missed your discussion with Gabriel. I was just telling him I thought the original hedge permit was for up to about 5 feet and supposed to go all the way down to the end of your property where the railroad property starts. I was surprised when it stopped half way. If that is your plan, it will be nice looking.

Patricia Maas
On Oct 10, 2022, at 1:22 PM, Gabriel P. <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Steve, it was good to see you today. Patricia and I both fully support your plan for continuing your hedge down Sea Cliff Way towards the northwest corner of your property.

Best regards,
Gabriel Porras
127 6th St.
5 October 17, 2022 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: Steven Crowe <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2022 5:13 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Fwd: Sea Cliff Alley landscaping
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.

Red Dot.

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Gabriel P." <[email protected]>
Subject: Sea Cliff Alley landscaping
Date: October 10, 2022 at 1:22:25 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Cc: Patricia Maas <[email protected]>
Hi Steve, it was good to see you today. Patricia and I both fully support your plan for continuing your hedge down Sea Cliff Way towards the northwest corner of your property.

Best regards,
Gabriel Porras
127 6th St.
6 October 17, 2022 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: Steven Crowe <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2022 5:14 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Fwd: Item 18 application to reverse denial of encroachment application 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.

Red Dot
Begin forwarded message:

From: "Reisner, Ralph" <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 18 application to reverse denial of encroachment application Date: October 15, 2022 at 1:59:37 PM PDT
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: Danute <[email protected]>
Dear Council Members :

Respectfully,
Ralph and Danute Reisner
268 Surfview Ct.
7 October 17, 2022 Item 18
Date: October 17, 2022
To: Members of the Del Mar City Council
From: Steve & Cherie Crowe, Applicants
Re: Encroachment Application to Install Hedge at 111 Sea Cliff Way Dear Council Members:

Cherie & I purchased our home in November 2020. We have been coming to Del Mar for 15 years since our daughter started attending University of San Diego. We wanted to leave Los Angeles and move to a more peaceful environment with an ocean view. When we purchased our home we loved the view, but we did not realize the amount of foot traffic that uses our dead-end street to access the bluffs, scores of people per week. We also did not realize the effect of the glass walls along the street on our privacy, particularly when our family and friends are using the backyard and at night when we are using our kitchen, dining room, and living room. People stop and stare at us and speak to us over the fence, which is very uncomfortable since we don’t know most of these people and what their intentions are.

We consulted a friend who is a licensed landscape architect with a Ph.D. from UCLA about how to create more privacy and security for our home and maintain the aesthetic quality of the property and neighborhood without interfering with the views of our neighbors. She recommended installing a privet hedge along our fence on the street to the height of the fence to screen the house and backyard from passersby and create a natural barrier that would enhance the appearance of the street as many of our neighbors have done (see examples provided from the immediate neighborhood). She also recommended planting some flowers at the base of the hedge to add color and visual interest to the hedge and further enhance the streetscape and one dwarf tree, crape myrtle instead of olive, in the planting area along the fence that is our property rather than the two dwarf olive trees provided in the approved landscape plan (see the photo provided in the staff report).

When the nursery arrived to plant the hedge and tree the city staff called the nursery to tell them to stop work, remove the planted material and leave because they did not have a license to work in the City of Del Mar. Staff contacted me by email to inform me that I needed an encroachment permit to plant the hedge on the three-foot wide city owned strip of soil along the western half of our fence. I was quite surprised about the permit requirement because I have lived in Southern California my whole life and cities routinely allow residents to choose the landscape plan for the city owned land in front of their homes. Nevertheless, we complied with the staff request and filed an encroachment application with a diagram and a photo. The nursery obtained a license and installed the plant material on our property per our plan.

Much to our surprise the staff denied our encroachment application. The denial letter is attached to the staff report signed by the Assistant City Manager, Clem, advising us to contact 1 October 17, 2022 Item 18
Madeline in Planning with any questions. I immediately called Madeline and questioned her about the reasons for denial. After talking for a few minutes she stated she was new in her job, not really qualified to answer my questions, and I should contact Matt Bator in Planning to discuss the matter further. I called Matt and asked him what were the facts that led the City Manager to apply the cited code sections for the denial. He told me DMMC Section

23.28.040(B)(3) was created during a project for which he was the planner because the city was concerned that people were planting hedges and erecting fences along city streets that were capturing city owned property into their front yard landscaping plans. The hedge that we propose on land that the city has given us to landscape and maintain does not add to our backyard property in any way as the code section prohibits. I asked Matt why the city concluded that this hedge would add to our property in any way or that the hedge would negatively impact the community in any way. He told me he did not make the decision and I should speak to Ashley, the City Manager.

I then called Ashley and asked her why she had denied the encroachment application. My recollection is that she said she just accepted the recommendation of the Planning Department, Karen Brindley and a woman who was the former Assistant City Manager who has left the employ of the city. I then called Karen. Her response was to suggest that we plant the hedge behind our wall which is our right by law. I told her that that solution had three drawbacks.

First, it would leave a blank, unlandscaped, glass wall along the street that is unaesthetic and did not enhance the street like a landscaped hedge and flowers. Second, the height of the hedge would be difficult to control by the city and nearby residents in the future if a new person buys the house, whereas, on city property the city could prune the hedge anytime they wanted to. Third, we do not have enough space along the entire inside of our wall to plant a continuous hedge because of the abutting pool equipment that sits right in front of our BBQ, kitchen, dining room and living room, and a discontinuous hedge would be unattractive.

I draw your attention to all the emails from residents on the street and in the immediate area either supporting or not objecting to the hedge with the condition that it is not allowed to grow above our fence. NO ONE THAT WE KNOW OPPOSES THE HEDGE, AND MANY WANT THE HEDGE. We would agree to remove the existing tree on our land along the street, even though it is permitted by law and included in the approved site plan, and we would agree to reduce the height of the hedge to six feet from the adjacent grade if the City Council agrees to allow the hedge on city-owned land. I also draw your attention to the extremely well written and reasoned letter written to the City Council by a local resident, Shirli Weiss, that explains better that I could why the staff ruling is not consistent with the SMCC code sections and facts they cited.

The home that we inhabit has added tremendously to the aesthetics, views, and values of all the homes on our street. We are attaching pictures of the street and the former apartment that occupied our property so that the Council can appreciate home much our home has improved the immediate area. We want to improve the street scene by implementing the landscaping improvements recommended by our landscape consultant, and we believe that the hedge we have proposed both protects our privacy and enhances the appearance of the street 2 October 17, 2022 Item 18
as compared to the cheap, unattractive plants that the developer had planted in the city land.

This is the view that is held by all our neighbors we have spoken to. We do not understand why the city staff would insist on blocking our attempts to create privacy for our family and beautify the street by blocking a six-foot hedge that is used by many other property owners in our neighborhood and, we believe, does not conflict with the DMMC.

We hope that you can understand and support our encroachment application.

Sincerely,
Steve & Cherie Crowe
3 October 17, 2022 Item 18
4 October 17, 2022 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: 522 Stratford - Google Images
From: Steven Crowe <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2022 5:32 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: 522 Stratford - Google Images
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.

Sarah, please include these picture for my encroachment application item #18 tomorrow before the city council Begin forwarded message:

From: Ryan Herrell <[email protected]>
Subject: 522 Stratford - Google Images
Date: October 13, 2022 at 1:50:28 PM PDT
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>

RYAN HERRELL
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT - DEVELOPMENT | LEED AP
MOBILE | 760.908.8383
[email protected]
1 October 17, 2022 Item 18
2 October 17, 2022 Item 18
3 October 17, 2022 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: Steven Crowe <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 9:30 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: 111 Sea Cliff Hedge
Attachments: Hedge Support Signature.pdf
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.
1 October 17, 2022 Item 18
2 October 17, 2022 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: Steven Crowe <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 9:45 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: 111 Sea Cliff Hedge
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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.

City Council,
Hedges are a typical way residents protect their privacy in our neighborhood.

Steve Crowe
1 October 17, 2022 Item 18
2 2 October 17, 2022 Item 18
3 3 October 17, 2022 Item 18
4 4 October 17, 2022 Item 18
5 5 October 17, 2022 Item 18
6 6 October 17, 2022 Item 18
7 7 October 17, 2022 Item 18
8 8 October 17, 2022 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: Steven Crowe <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 11:02 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: 111 Sea Cliff Hedge
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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.

Council,
Here is a picture of the only view window on Sea Cliff Way affected by the hedge and the view from that window. The RR hedge is higher than our fence. The homes on the north side only their garages face the street except the second story of the Thomas house which is 30 feet above our fence due to the steep slope of the street. 1 October 17, 2022 Item 18
2 2 October 17, 2022 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: Steven Crowe <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 11:18 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: 111 Sea View Hedge
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.

Council,
Here are views of our backyard showing the pool equipment abutting the fence on the street making an inside hedge impossible for the area in front of kitchen and living room. Also, pictures of north side of street and RR hedge. 1 October 17, 2022 Item 18
2 2 October 17, 2022 Item 18
3 3 October 17, 2022 Item 18
4 4 October 17, 2022 Item 18
October 17, 2022
Re: Item 18, City Council Agenda 10/17/2022
To Whom It May Concern:

We write as a private residents who live within 300 feet of 111 Sea Cliff Way regarding Item 18 on today’s City Council agenda.

We agree with the staff decision to deny the Major Encroachment application as submitted by the owner of 111 Sea Cliff Way.

However, we understand that the owner has conferred with many residents in the neighborhood who use Sea Cliff Way regularly as their passage to the Upper Bluff Coastal Trail. He has expressed willingness to enter a recorded agreement that would restrict the height of plants along the entire north boundary of 111 Sea Cliff Way and thus preserve forever the existing public views of the Ocean and Bluff for current and future residents and visitors to enjoy. Please see attached photos to illustrate.

In our opinion, such an agreement would provide public benefit to many.

If a covenant is recorded to restrict the height of plantings along the north wall and fence of 111 Sea Cliff Way to no higher than the height of the existing fence, we strongly support the Major Encroachment application because of the clear public benefit. The public benefit will be a memorialized and secure open view over the entire articulated fence along the north boundary of 111 Sea Cliff Way.

Greenery along the wall on the north side will provide privacy to the property and also an enjoyable green experience to people who walk by.

A recorded height restriction will ensure that open views to the west and southwest across the wall and fence are protected into the future.

We ask the City Council to agree to hear the appeal of the City Manager's decision so that a covenant can be presented to the Council as a remedy that will cure the issues at hand along Sea Cliff Way.

Karl Willert & Terry Gaasterland
Del Mar Residents at
151 Sea Cliff Way
Del Mar, CA 92014
1 October 17, 2022 Item 18
Views along Sea Cliff Way
Current public view looking
southwest from Sea Cliff Way
2 October 17, 2022 Item 18
Public and Private Views along Sea Cliff Way
The unobstructed open public view of the ocean down Sea Cliff Way is a public resource and also the primary view from living areas for at least 5 properties to the east of 111 Sea Cliff Way. 3 October 17, 2022 Item 18
Zephyr left unpaved
58-foot by 4-foot strip
of alley west of utility
equipment...
... and planted a garden.

The garden added to
the beauty of the alley
and preserved views
down Sea Cliff Way.
4 October 17, 2022 Item 18
Shippey Lane
Little Orphan Alley
TWO EXAMPLES
Public views of Ocean and
Bluff blocked by
plants on adjacent parcels
A covenant protecting
plant height no higher than
the existing fence at
111 Sea Cliff Way
will preserve public views
of Ocean and Bluff.
5 October 17, 2022 Item 18
Melanie Way
Sherrie Lane
TWO MORE EXAMPLES
Public views of Ocean and
Bluff open for all to enjoy.

A covenant protecting
plant height no higher than
the existing fence at
111 Sea Cliff Way
will preserve public views
of Ocean and Bluff.
6 October 17, 2022 Item 18
Allowing plants
NO HIGHER THAN existing fence
with a covenant
for entire fence west of
111 Sea Cliff Way’s driveway
will have public benefit.
7 October 17, 2022 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: Laura DeMarco <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 2:37 PM
To: Terry Gaasterland; David Druker; Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk; Dwight Worden Cc: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 18: support De Novo hearing for appeal by 111 Sea Cliff applicant Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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.

Dear Council Members,
Please approve a De Novo hearing so the applicants at 111 Sea Cliff can present their updated vegetation plan which will reduce water intrusion to the fragile bluffs below the property, improve city property, and preserve ocean views currently enjoyed by their neighbors and the public.

Since there is limited vegetation lining the alley filled with impervious cement and asphalt, during rainstorms it turns into a rushing stream of water pouring down the street end, next to the subject property, on to the fragile upper and lower bluffs below. This is not helped by the city’s narrow strip of dirt abutting the property that turns into mud and silt that joins the torrent of water. Fortunately, the applicants’ proposed hedge will prevent erosion of the city’s property and help soak up the runoff water that continually damages our fragile bluffs.

The city will also benefit by not having to bear the cost of planting and maintaining the eroding dirt strip of city property.

The public and neighbors will enjoy the improved aesthetics of a green hedge that hides the property’s unattractive and noisy pool equipment and its cement retaining wall. Furthermore, the hedge blocks noise from the pool equipment and those enjoying the pool and outdoor entertaining space.

Resident and visitor foot traffic on Sea Cliff down to the bluffs has increased since the original developers of the subject property made it more attractive by undergrounding overhead wires and utility poles that previously blocked ocean views. The curious and nefarious are attracted to view the new bluff-front property whose entire backyard, pool, pool equipment, and house interior are visible through plate glass fencing.

The property’s high visibility makes it an easy target for the burglary ring that has struck several high-end homes in Del Mar. It is also disconcerting and embarrassing to those passing by and to the family’s female members and guests using the pool and deck in their bathing suits.

It is important to note that the neighbors support the applicants’ revised project which limits the proposed hedges’s height so it does not block ocean views and removes a tree planted on the applicant’s property.

Thanks for your consideration,
Laura
1 October 17, 2022 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: Del Mar Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 8:54 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Ashley Jones
Subject: Fwd: Hedge matter on Sea Cliff Way
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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.

Please see below, sent to me, the Mayor and Councilmember Quirk. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Callahan <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 9:45 AM
Subject: Hedge matter on Sea Cliff Way
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Dwight Worden <[email protected]> Good morning Council members,
Our 2 cents on the hedge matter on Sea Cliff Way that will soon come (back) before Council:

The beautiful open public view of the ocean as you walk down the alley would be impeded by this hedge, and for that reason we oppose it.

Perhaps more importantly, we don’t love the precedent it would set to allow private homeowners to build anything in the public ROW, no matter how benign it might seem on its face.

If the homeowner wants a hedge, he’s free to build it fully on his property. It looks like he’s already installed some planting on his side that blocks most of the view into his yard.

Best,
Kevin & Michael (on Stratford)
1 October 17, 2022 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: Anne Farrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2022 8:47 PM
To: Dan Quirk; David Druker; Dwight Worden; Terry Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; Ashley Jones; Karen Brindley; Joe Bride
Cc: City Clerk Mail Box; [email protected]; Harold Feder ([email protected]) Subject: Red Dot: Item 19 on City Council agenda, 10/17/2022 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.

Dear Mayor Worden, City Council Members, Ms. Jones, Mr. Bride, and Ms. Brindley:

We appreciate staff’s effort to locate a suitable replacement veneer for the Tewa retaining wall. It certainly looks close enough to the discontinued veneer material used on the Camino del Mar/Jimmy Durante Blvd walls to proceed with this project. Since the sample is only a small photograph, we would urge the Council to be open to a reassessment of the material after completion of the project if there is any stakeholder feedback to that effect, since we are making a long-term commitment to a potential large number of walls.

A unique feature of these transformer walls is the wing walls that approach the curb. It would be very helpful to know that the mason has a well-considered plan for how the veneer will be placed on these narrow edges that face the street.

Finally, we would request that transformer walls be located in front of sandstone formations only if there is no feasible alternative.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Harold Feder, Richard Jamison, Anne Farrell
Former executive committee, Ad Hoc Development Review Process Citizen Advisory Committee 1 October 17, 2022 Item 19
1 Melinda Gould
From: Camilla Rang <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2022 12:33 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Supporting Item 20, City Council meeting 10.17.22 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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.

Dear City Council,
I want to express my strongest support for you writing a letter to NCTD opposing their planned request to SANDAG to get to use the $300 million for other things but making the tunnel proposal go forward. I suggest that letter should also be cc'd to SANDAG and the California State Agengy/Department that granted the money and also make Mike Levin aware of the shameful -and I guess even illegal, act that NCTD is planning by using state funds for other things than they were meant for. It all seems very fishy and corrupt.

Thank you for defending Del Mar!
Sincerely,
Camilla Rang
Cell: 858 353 1948
1 October 17, 2022 Item 20
1 Melinda Gould
From: Dolores Jamison <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2022 12:57 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot—Oct. 17 Council Agenda, Item #21
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.

Del Mar City Council
October 17, 2022 Agenda
Item #21
Dear Mayor Worden & Council Members:

We just recently learned of the Del Mar Foundation’s generous request to donate 40 trees to the City. As you may know, the City’s Climate Action Plan recommends tree planting as one of its goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While this number of trees is relatively small, accepting this donation would be a positive step in the right direction. While we realize view blockage is always an issue with respect to trees in Del Mar, we think there are several locations—as mentioned in the proposal—which would not interfere with ocean views. Besides its ocean views, Del Mar has always valued its urban forest. And, in our era of climate change, our trees are more important than ever—providing needed carbon sequestration, cooling, and aesthetic relief from our built environment.

With this in mind, we hope you will accept this generous donation from the Del Mar Foundation.

Sincerely,
Richard and Dolores Davies Jamison
Crest Road
Del Mar
1 October 17, 2022 Item 21
1 Melinda Gould
From: Mary Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 2:07 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Comments for Today's Meeting - Item 22 Continued Teleconferencing Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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.

Clerk & Del Mar City Council:

Regarding Item 22 -
Please quit the charade of teleconferencing for "safety", and let the public know this vote is really about keeping privacy and convenience for YOU, the members of the governing body.

You should have codified virtual participation by the public long ago, as you have the authority to do.

The relaxed teleconferencing standards for AB 361 serves as a FLOOR -- a minimum standard, for YOU, THE MEMBERS.

Points to consider:

1. Teleconferencing is Already Allowed: From Government Code Section 54953:
(3) If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public. During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body shall participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, except as provided in subdivision (d). The agenda shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body directly pursuant to Section 54954.3 at each teleconference location.

2. AB 361 Makes Life Easier for YOU: It relaxes the standards so that essentially you can teleconference from home in your jammies (please at least wear a nice top!) but the public cannot show up to speak from your location. It makes teleconferencing easier/more convenient/more private for YOU.

3. You've Had the Power All Along to Allow Virtual Participation for the Public: The original Section 54953 serves as a floor -- a minimum standard for YOU, the members of the governing body. Nothing has prevented 1 October 17, 2022 Item 22
2 you from allowing virtual participation from the public.

Please codify virtual participation by the public as the San Diego County Board of Supervisors did in their revised rules from November 10, 2021. Rule 4c states:
(c) In addition to providing public comments in person at Board of Supervisors meetings, the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall provide the ability for members of the public to address the Board of Supervisors remotely via a telephonic or other Internet-based service option at regular meetings. Individuals requesting to speak remotely must follow the same rules as in-person speakers and submit requests to speak through an online form in accordance with Rule 4(b).
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/bos/boardrules.html

4. Quit Hiding Behind Covid: There are already teleconferencing measures in place to allow you to participate remotely. I would ask you to reflect on your own personal behaviors - are you attending outside meetings, events, etc. while opting to keep relaxed standards for yourselves? Are continued relaxed standards for teleconferencing about safety, or are they much more likely about you and your convenience? Do your personal behaviors and actions align with your vote?
In closing, all of your governing members, as well as the public, need to be aware that you already have the power to keep people "safe" via codifying hybrid public participation, and to teleconference remotely for the members (albeit under stricter standards.)
As we are well into year three, it is time to give back to they keys to the Covid-powers castle and return back to normal operations. Quit trying to gaslight the public that this is about safety, when it is really about privacy and convenience for YOU.

Mary Davis
P.S. - You may want to take a cue from SANDAG, who let teleconferencing under AB 361 quietly slip away. The last time they voted on it was July 22, 2022, and it has not been brought forth since. It seems a good and fitting 'gently into the good night' ending to a policy that is no longer warranted.

Lastly, please refer to the chart I made below, detailing some of the differences between the higher-threshold standards of teleconferencing under the original Brown Act, and the relaxed standards that benefit YOU. 2 October 17, 2022 Item 22
3 3 October 17, 2022 Item 22
4 Link to my Beginner's Guide to Civic Activism: Beginners Guide to Civic Activism .pdf Sincerely,
Mary Davis
4 October 17, 2022 Item 22

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA QUESTIONS
October 17, 2022
Item 2- Ratification of List of Demands, dated October 17, 2022

1. What are the two items totaling $4,079, for rental housing at Beach Colony No 1? There's another rental housing entry later that doesn't reference Beach Colony for $1,686?
Answer: The City’s Housing program provides rental subsidy to four (4) residents of Del Mar. Monthly Housing assistance payments are paid directly to the property owner or management company. The current payments included in the list of demands this week are:
a. Beach Colony 1 $2,178
b. Beach Colony 1 $1,901
c. Morrice H Swartz $1,686
d. Sidney A Mackin $1,343

2. What is the $36, 882 to Coast Waste Management? I thought their service ended in July?
Answer: Coast Waste Management (WM) services did end in July. However, payments to WM are not made until after they are paid by residents. Ck#135292 to Coast Waste Management, in the amount of $36,822.90 accounts for the collections received by residents in August for May/June services. Another payment to WM of approximately half the amount will be issued this month for those residents that are on the June/July utility billing cycle, which will account for services received in June. Also, additional smaller payments may be made to WM as final collections are paid to the City.

Item 4 – Approval of Agreements for As-Needed Economic Impact and Fiscal Analysis Consulting Services

1. Are any of these costs covered by Housing Acceleration Program (HAP) or other housing grants? If they review development applications (like North bluff) are their costs billed through to or recovered from the applicant? Answer: Yes, the City has Housing Acceleration Program (HAP) Grant funds available to support consultant work on various Housing Element Programs. The City currently has task orders with KMA (initiated during the prior as-needed agreement term) that will allow the City to complete various housing feasibility studies and fiscal analysis related to opportunities for affordable housing on sites identified in the Housing Element sites inventory, including the Fairgrounds. As additional needs for economic impact and fiscal analysis consulting services are 1 October 17, 2022 Items 2,4,6,7,9,11,12,15,17-20
identified, the new agreements with KMA and DTA will allow the City to proceed with additional task orders for consulting services utilizing funds available in the existing budget or using funds covered by deposits submitted by private development applicant’s to ensure cost recovery.

2. For these contracts and the geotechnical contracts (Item 5) that go three years, we have costs covered in our two year budget. Where does that leave us for year 3?
Answer: The Council action this evening is to approve as-needed agreements which will allow the City to work with the various firms on City Council priority projects by issuing Task Orders, which include a scope of work and associated expense. The as-needed agreements do not commit the City to any financial obligations. Task Orders issued under the as-needed agreements will be based on the City Council goals for a given year and will be budgeted accordingly.

Item 6- Agreement with United Site Services of California, Inc. for Portable Restroom Services

1. I don't see River Path covered-should it be?
Answer: There are not any Portable Restrooms along the Riverpath. There was a Hand Washing Station at the Grand Avenue Bridge which was provided by the County of San Diego during COVID, and has since been removed by the County.

2. It was stated that United Site Services of California will cost $29,505/yr. What is the current cost of Diamond Environmental Services?
Answer: The City’s agreement with Diamond Environmental Services expires November 1, 2022, and the cost for service under the current agreement is $27,000 per year. The City solicited proposals and United Site Services is the most cost effective option of the proposals submitted. Their fees are consistent with Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases the City has seen for similar services.

Item 7- First Amendments to Agreements for As-Needed General Engineering; Surveying; and Fats, Oil, and Grease Program Services

1. Are any of the Dudek, SD Engineering, Psomas, or Ogawa costs recovered though planning fees or otherwise?
Answer: Mikhail Ogawa Engineering (MOE) is the City’s Fats Oil and Grease (FOG) program consultant, and the majority of the FOG program budget is funded through the FOG program’s Annual Administration, Plan Check and Variance fees.

The other As-Needed services are funded through project budgets. As mentioned above, the funding source for a given project will depend on the work being 2 October 17, 2022 Items 2,4,6,7,9,11,12,15,17-20
performed. Before work is initiated, staff will return to City Council with Task Orders that outline the specific scope of work, cost of the work, and funding source (ex. general fund, grants, developer paid fees) for a given project or work assignment being issued under the as-needed agreements.

Item 9-Proposed Amendment to Civic Center Operations and Special Event Plan Related to Approved Users of the Civic Center Facilities

1. What is the nexus of WildCoast and Nature and Culture International to Del Mar?
Answer: WildCoast, a non-profit promoting environmental projects in the United States and Mexico, has recently requested to be added to the list so they can use the facilities at the Civic Center. WildCoast recently opened an office in Del Mar and operates various activities related to the San Dieguito Lagoon that benefit the City of Del Mar. These activities include the studying and monitoring of blue carbon and organizing volunteer efforts to remove invasive species and plant native vegetation along the Del Mar River Path. Based on their community ties and benefits, Mayor Worden and Deputy Mayor Martinez recommend the City Council revise the Operations Plan (Attachment A) to make WildCoast eligible to use the Civic Center facilities.

Nature and Culture International was added as an approved user of Civic Center facilities by Council action on September 30, 2019, following a request made by the non-profit. Nature and Cultural International’s office is located in the City of Del Mar and more information about their mission and programs is available on their website: https://www.natureandculture.org/

2. Through our business permits, do we have a sense of how many nonprofits operate in Del Mar?
Answer: Under Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) 5.04.030 Exemption- Charitable non-profits are not required to apply for a Del Mar business license; however, some non-profits do apply for business licenses. There no fees associated with nonprofit business licenses.

3. Does the scope of their mission get included in the permit application? Answer: No, only a brief description of the business/non-profit is included on the business license application on the business license application.

4. Do we have any way to know whether businesses that operate out of offices in Del Mar bring in any revenue other than rent to the office owners (and thereby property tax to the city and county)?
3 October 17, 2022 Items 2,4,6,7,9,11,12,15,17-20
Answer: The City has access to business/non-profit sales tax generated revenue information; however, that information is confidential and cannot be provided to the public. The City does not have information about other non-profit generated revenues.

5. How much capacity of the city’s conference rooms is already in use and projected to be in use over the next year? A fair assumption is that given the need for distancing and less density, demand for conference room space will go up (large room used for smaller groups, small rooms used for two or three people).

Answer: The City has seen reduced use of the Civic Center conference rooms due to the increased use of Zoom and other remote meeting platforms. Approved nonprofits are permitted to use conference rooms, pending availability. Staff and Council reservations are given priority.

6. Wildcoast seems to have a mission that is opposite of our council’s position on managed retreat. If we wind up on the opposite side of them on this issue regarding Del Mar’s beach community, it would be awkward to be sharing our space with them.

Answer: Staff does not have information specific to WildCoast’s positon on managed retreat. That would be an appropriate question for the Councilmembers who are bringing this item forward for City Council consideration or for WildCoast directly.

Item 11- Approval of Agreement for Business License Tax and Administrative Services

1. Have we done outreach to the DMVA and business community? Do they know this is coming, and do they support it? If approved by the council, will there be outreach before implementation?
Answer: The City has been working with Del Mar Village Association (DMVA) to improve business license services, as well as data collection and reporting functions. Providing business licenses services through HdL will better meet the needs of DMVA and the business community based on the feedback staff has received. There is no increased cost to the business community related to the onboarding of this software. Implementation of the software will provide easier access and enhanced services. Staff will work with HdL to develop and implement an effective outreach program prior to the business license renewal period in December 2022.

2. What kind of data will be collected about businesses and their owners and operators, and will it be available for other city uses or kept confidential? Can we de-identify confidential material and use it aggregated? 4 October 17, 2022 Items 2,4,6,7,9,11,12,15,17-20
Answer: The business license data collected by HdL will include contact information for the business, information about the type of business, number of employees, gross receipts, business location, and other information similar to what is on the current license. Because HdL’s platform is online, the City is able to make certain fields required, which will allow the City to require certain important (noninvasive) information from all businesses. With the City’s current PDF form and paper process, it is more difficult for the City to require all of the information requested on the business license form, which means many forms are submitted with missing information that staff has to follow up on.

Business license information will be available to the City and certain information like business contact information and type of business will be publicly available, which will be helpful for DMVA. Information like gross receipts will be provided to the City but is confidential and will not be provided to the public.

Item 12- Approval of a Task Order with PSOMAS to Perform Engineering Design Services for the 2023 Water, Wastewater, Pavement Improvements Project

1. Why is the waterline extension on Christie Lane needed? I am not aware of any new construction on that road.

Answer: About seven ago, the Christie Lane water main that used to connect to Jimmy Durante Boulevard was “Cut and Plugged”, creating a “Dead End.” Extending the water main will provide enough room for better service connections and a “blow off” to address any water quality issues.

Item 15- Planning and Engineering Fee Schedule Administrative Update

1. Although we are doing a "make up call" for the ones we skipped, these fees will only be charged prospectively, no? Are there any projects in the pipeline who are not fully paid up, and will they be affected?
Answer: Correct. The fees will be implemented moving forward. There will be no retroactive application of the fees.

Item 17- Consideration of Adding a Building Electrification Ordinance to Staff’s Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Work Plan

1. Why is it state that there is no fiscal impact? If we were to move forward, is there an estimated cost for fiscal year2022-2023?
Answer: The recommended action (i.e., whether or not to add the processing of a building electrification ordinance to staff’s current work plan) has no direct fiscal impact to the City. However, if the Council adds this effort to staff’s work plan, it will be a significant work item for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. Staff estimates it would 5 October 17, 2022 Items 2,4,6,7,9,11,12,15,17-20
take approximately 55 hours of combined staff time from the City Manager’s Office and Planning & Community Development Department, and seven (7) hours of review by the City Attorney. The cost for the City Attorney’s review is approximately $1,400. All technical work will be supported by pro bono consultants from the California State Codes and Standards Office and SDG&E at no cost to the City.

Note that the 55 hours of staff time does not include additional community outreach to support the project. If the Council directs staff to conduct more outreach to local contractors, architects, and the development community, it would be in addition to the estimated 55 hours of staff time to process the ordinance.

2. Do new ADU’s require solar panel electrification?
Answer: Yes, newly constructed Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are subject to the California Energy Code requirement (excluding manufactured homes) to provide solar systems if the unit is a newly constructed, non-manufactured, detached ADU (though some exceptions apply). Per the California Energy Commission (CEC), the solar systems can be installed on the ADU or on the primary dwelling unit. ADUs that are constructed within existing space, or as an addition to existing homes, including detached additions where an existing detached building is converted from non-residential to residential space, are not subject to the Energy Code requirement to provide solar systems. Compliance with the Energy Code would be determined by the City’s Building Official.

Item 18- 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

1. Why is this an initial consideration? Isn’t the council the authority on the granting, modifying or denying such permits?
Answer: The initial consideration of Encroachment Permit (EP22-064) relates to a long-term “minor” encroachment permit application, not a long-term “major” encroachment permit. The installation of vegetation in the public right-of-way qualifies as a “minor” encroachment. Under DMMC 23.28.070(A), “A decision on an application for a Minor Encroachment Permit shall be made by the City Manager in accordance with DMMC Section 23.28.070C. The decision may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with DMMC Section

23.28.110.” Decisions on long-term “major” encroachment permits are made by the City Council.

Item 19- Consideration of Retaining Wall Materials for Utility Undergrounding Project
6 October 17, 2022 Items 2,4,6,7,9,11,12,15,17-20

1. Did the recommended retaining wall materials get reviewed by DRB and did they make a recommendation?
Answer: No. Staff did not return this item to Design Review Board for review and recommendation to City Council. Procedurally the recommendation is returning to the City Council because in February, 2022 the Council made the wall material selection, for TEWA and for future phases of the Utility Undergrounding project (UUP). The Council had previously directed staff to include three retaining wall materials in the UUP project bid package. As such, the proposed wall materials that were considered by the City Council included the DRB recommended tan split face concrete block, the El Dorado Stone “La Plata” and a cultured stone veneer.

The Council selected the “La Plata” specification since it matched the existing retaining wall on Jimmy Durante Boulevard. Staff consulted with several building material supply companies to find a substitution (Creative Mines Trail Ledge “Mountain Lion”) that most closely matches the existing retaining wall since the “La Plata” material is no longer available.

Item 20- Consideration of a Letter to the North County Transit District Regarding LOSSAN Rail Realignment Funding

1. There is a typo in the letter--referring to $3 million when it should be $300 million, although correct references to $300 million comes later. Also, the letter references these funds were" hard fought for by elected officials at the local, county and State level and SANDAG staff." Should "federal" be added? Answer: Staff can make this correction if the Council authorizes the letter to be distributed.

2. I think a good addition to the draft would be an acknowledgement by us that we agree the other projects NCTD would like to pursue are also all important, and we will support seeking funding for them, but not at the expense of these funds for the relocation project.

Answer: Staff can make changes to the letter pending City Council direction and feedback.
7 October 17, 2022 Items 2,4,6,7,9,11,12,15,17-20

Del Mar City CouncilOctober 17, 2022

Del Mar City Council
October 17, 2022