Agenda, regular meeting, first session — Del Mar City Council, November 14, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

Table of Contents
2022-11-14 Regular Meeting Agenda.pdf
Item 1 - Proclamation - Family Court Awareness.pdf
Item 2 - USACE Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project_FINAL.pdf Item 4 - Minutes.pdf
Item 5 - List of Demands.pdf
Item 7 - City Council Meeting Schedule and Proposed Closures Agenda Report 2022.pdf Item 8 - Updates to Retirement Plans.pdf
Item 9 - Finance Committee Appointment.pdf
Item 10 - EP22-082 Council Report.pdf
Item 11 - TVS21-002 De Novo Hearing Report.pdf
Item 12 - Establishing Credit Card Fees.pdf
Item 13- In-Person Meeting Transition Plan.pdf
2 9
10 12
22 65
72 87
96 131
311
317
Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda

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

Remote Regular Meeting

VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY
Monday, November 14, 2022 at 4:30 PM
In the interest of public health, and consistent with the provisions of Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361) and related resolutions adopted by the Del Mar City Council, the City of Del Mar is temporarily taking actions to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic by holding City Council Meetings electronically or by teleconference. This is not an in-person meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

Dwight Worden
Mayor
Tracy Martinez
Deputy Mayor
Dave Druker
Council Member
Terry Gaasterland
Council Member
Dan Quirk
Council Member
Ashley Jones
City Manager
Leslie E. Devaney
City Attorney
Sarah Krietor
Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting November 14, 2022
Agenda Page 2
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
II. CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Public oral communications will take place shortly after the start of the meeting.

Those wishing to comment on any matter not on the agenda may join the meeting at 4:30 PM using the Zoom link and dial-in information:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84790910014; Phone: (669) 900-6833; Meeting ID: 847 9091 0014.

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

1. Proclamation Declaring the Month of November as Family Court Awareness Month
Recommended Action: Mayor Worden to present Proclamation to Tracey MuellerGibbs with the Family Court Awareness Month Committee (FCAMC).

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1201-5

2. USACE Presentation Regarding the Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the City Council receive a presentation from representatives of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regarding the Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project located in the cities of Solana Beach and Encinitas.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1404-1, 1404-2

3. SANDAG Rail Realignment Presentation
Recommended Action: Receive a presentation from SANDAG representatives Sharon Humphries and Danny Veeh regarding the SANDAG Rail Realignment Project.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1506-1
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting November 14, 2022
Agenda Page 3
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us IX. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the City Council, staff, or the public so requests, in which event, the item will be considered separately.

4. Approval of Minutes: October 17, 2022 Regular and Special Meeting Recommended Action: Approve Minutes.

Reference: Clerk’s Minutes Book

5. Ratification of List of Demands, dated November 14, 2022 Recommended Action: Ratify the List of Demands.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 201-3

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

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-4

7. Proposed Amendments to the 2022 & 2023 City Council Meeting and Holiday Closure Schedules
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the City Council: 1) Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) amending the 2022 City Council Meeting Schedule to reschedule the regular December 19, 2022, City Council Meeting to December 12, 2022; and 2) Authorize the holiday related closure of City Hall on December 27, 28 & 29, 2022, and December 27 & 28, 2023.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-1

8. Administrative Updates to City Employee Retirement Plan Options Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) terminating the MissionSquare City Manager Retirement Plan 401(a); and 2) Adopt Resolutions (Attachments B and C) adding a Roth option to the City’s MissionSquare Retirement and CalPERS 457(b) Plans.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 502-5

9. Finance Committee Appointment
Recommended Action: The City Council Liaisons to the Finance Committee recommend that the City Council appoint Michael Minter as a voting member to the Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting November 14, 2022
Agenda Page 4
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us Committee to serve a full three-year term starting November 14, 2022, and ending on November 30, 2025.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-5
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS

10. Encroachment Permit (EP) EP22-082 – SANDAG Bluff Stabilization V Improvements Relating to Shoreline Protection, Drainage Improvements, and Required Mitigation (Beach access for construction at 18th Street and adjacent to APNs: 299-240-01, 299-240-23)
Applicant: San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) on behalf of North County Transit District (NCTD)
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council: 1) Adopt the Resolution (Attachment A) conditionally approving Encroachment Permit EP22-082 to authorize bluff stabilization improvements relating to shoreline protection, drainage improvements, required mitigation, and authorizing access for construction along the beach, south bluff, and adjacent to private property at APNs 299-240-01 and 299-240-23 (from 15th Street south to Carmel Valley Road) and; 2) Authorize the City Manager to waive associated planning application fees in the amount of $1,941.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 802-1, 1506-1

11. Continued from October 17, 2022: De Novo Hearing of an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision on Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Application TVS21-002
TVS Applicant/Appellant: Michael and Angela Deftos
Applicant’s Address: 225 Torrey Pines Terrace
Tree Owners: Harvey and Sheryl White
Tree Owners Address: 473 Ocean View Avenue
Recommended Action: It is recommended the City Council adopt the Planning Commission subcommittee recommendation that included Certified Arborist Mark Wisniewski’s restoration plan dated August 2, 2022, per the attached Resolution (Attachment A), for restoring the Appellant’s scenic views, for trees #1-3, with trimming for tree #1 to commence at the soonest date as determined feasible by the City’s consulting arborist.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1403-7

12. Adoption of Resolution Establishing Fees for Use of Credit Cards, Debit Cards, and Electronic Funds Transfer to Pay for Fees, Services and Other Debts Owed to the City of Del Mar
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting November 14, 2022
Agenda Page 5
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) establishing fees for use of credit cards, debit cards, and electronic funds transfer to pay for fees, services and other debts owed to the City of Del Mar (City).

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 204-6
XI. COUNCIL MEETING RECESS
XII. CITY COUNCIL OTHER BUSINESS

13. In-Person Public Meetings Transition Plan
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Review the proposed plan for transitioning to in-person public meeting and provide direction; 2) Approve a budget adjustment in the amount of $8,500 to the Public, Educational, and Government (PEG) fund for hybrid meeting equipment; and 3) Consider a Resolution (Attachment A) making the finding required by Government Code 54953 to continue with remote public meetings during the local emergency declared in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-1, 401-7
XIII. REGIONAL ORGANIZATION REPORTS
A Councilmember assigned as a liaison to a regional organization may make a written or oral report. State law precludes the Council from commenting on, discussing, or acting on a report unless the item of business within the report is described in the agenda.

A. 22nd District Agricultural Association Community Relations Committee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
B. Clean Energy Alliance JPA (CEA) Board of Directors (Druker/Worden) C. CSA-17 Ambulance District Advisory Board (Martinez/Druker) D. Fire Governance Board, Solana Beach/Del Mar/Encinitas (Druker/Martinez) E. League of California Cities – San Diego Chapter (Worden/Martinez) F. North County Transit District (NCTD) (Quirk/Gaasterland/Druker) G. Regional Solid Waste Association (Worden/Quirk)
H. San Diego Association of Governments Board (SANDAG)
(Gaasterland/Druker/Quirk)
I. SANDAG Borders Committee (Druker)
J. SANDAG Regional Planning Committee (Gaasterland)
K. SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Working Group (Worden/Gaasterland) L. San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Commission/JPA (Worden/Quirk/Druker) M. San Dieguito River Valley Regional Open Space Park JPA –Executive Committee (Worden/Quirk)
N. Other Regional Organization Reports
XIV. COUNCIL COMMITTEES/SUBCOMMITTEES/COMMUNITY ORG REPORTS A Councilmember assigned as a liaison to a City Committee, Council Subcommittee OR Community Organization may make a written or oral report. State law precludes the Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting November 14, 2022
Agenda Page 6
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us Council from commenting on, discussing, or acting on a report, unless the item of business within the report is described in this agenda.

A. Ad-Hoc Referendum Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Druker)
B. Arts Advisory Committee (Druker/Worden)
C. Clean Water Rate Project (Druker, Quirk)
D. Del Mar Community Connections (Martinez/Quirk)
E. Del Mar Village Association (Druker/Quirk)
F. Finance Committee (Gaasterland/Quirk)
G. Housing Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
H. Human Resources Subcommittee (Druker/Worden)
I. Legislative Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Druker)
J. Long-Term Rail Relocation Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Druker) K. Measure Q Citizen Oversight Committee (Druker/Quirk) L. Parks and Recreation Committee (Druker/Worden)
M. Planning Process Subcommittee (Druker/Gaasterland)
N. Safe Rail Crossing and Bluff Stabilization Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Druker) O. Lagoon Committee (Quirk/Worden)
P. Sea-Level Rise Adaptation Plan Implementation Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
Q. Shores Advisory Committee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
R. Solid Waste Procurement Services Ad-Hoc Subcommittee (Quirk/Worden) S. Sustainability Advisory Committee (DrukerWorden)
T. Traffic and Parking Advisory Committee (Martinez/Worden) U. Undergrounding Project Advisory Committee (Gaasterland/Quirk) V. Other Committee-Subcommittee Reports
XV. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS
The following topics/items are tentatively planned for upcoming agendas. The title, wording, and planned date for these items are subject to change. Final agendas are posted at City Hall 72 hours in advance of the meetings and are also posted on our web site with the accompanying staff report. Please watch our web site: www.delmar.ca.us for City Council Agendas.

December 5, 2022
Coastal Connections Conceptual Planning Study - Review/Discuss Draft Concepts Approval of the Third Amendments to Recycled Water Agreements for Sale of Reclaimed Water
Planning Commission Interviews and Appointment
Introduce Ordinance/LCPA for Public Facilities/Public Parkland Sites (General Plan Amendment/Rezone/LCPA)
De Novo Hearing EP22-064 111 Sea Cliff/ Crowe
Authorization to Purchase License Plate Readers to Enchance Public Safety Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting November 14, 2022
Agenda Page 7
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us Consideration of a Letter Regarding Housing Legislation Impacts to State Representatives Discussion of Advisory Committee Meeting Frequency and Approval of 2023 Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule
XVI. CERTIFICATION
I, Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk for the City of Del Mar, hereby certify that a copy of this agenda was posted at City Hall on the 9th day of November, 2022, at approximately 4:25 p.m.
___________________________________________ 11/9/2022
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/ Date
City Clerk
1 November 14, 2022 Item 01
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Clem Brown, Assistant City Manager
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: November 14, 2022
SUBJECT: USACE Presentation Regarding the Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council receive a presentation from representatives of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regarding the Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project located in the cities of Solana Beach and Encinitas.

BACKGROUND:

The cities of Solana Beach and Encinitas have been working with the USACE since 2001 on the Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project (Project). The purpose and objectives of the Project are to reduce coastal storm damage to critical public infrastructure and property along the shoreline; improve public safety by reducing risks from bluff failures; and reduce coastal erosion and shoreline narrowing to improve coastal access and enhance recreational opportunities.

The Project consists of two shoreline areas in the cities of Solana Beach (1.36 miles or 7,200 linear feet of beach restored) and Encinitas (1.47 miles or 7,800 of beach restored). For the City of Solana Beach segment, the impacted shoreline area stretches from Tide Park Beach in the north to the city’s southern boundary with the City of Del Mar at North Beach. This is a large-scale beach nourishment project like the two prior Regional Beach Sand Projects (RBSP). By comparison, the small sand placement projects conducted by Southern California Edison at the San Dieguito Lagoon River inlet involve approximately 16,000 cubic yards of sand placement; and the quantity of sand placed in Del Mar via RBSP1 was 180,000 cubic yards. As proposed for the Solana Beach segment of the USACE project, the initial sand placement volume will include 700,000 cubic yards with a future nourishment volume of 290,000 cubic yards of sand every five years following the initial beach nourishment subject to funding availability. The Project will involve monitoring of a range of factors related to changes in water and beach conditions, which are anticipated to result in 150 feet of additional beach width in Solana Beach.

The Project was approved by the California Coastal Commission in November 2013 and is currently in the Pre-Construction Engineering Design (PED) phase that is anticipated to be 1 November 14, 2022 Item 02
City Council Agenda Report
USACE Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project
November 14, 2022

Page 2 of 2 ends

completed in the Fall of 2023. The anticipated start date for construction is Fall/Winter 2023.

Local approval from the City of Del Mar would only be needed if beach placement work or access to beach placement locations is needed via access routes on the public beach within the City’s jurisdiction. In that case an Encroachment Permit subject to City Council approval would be required prior to construction, which will provide the City with the opportunity to coordinate on construction management details pre-construction like what is implemented in preparation for the dredging and beach sand placement activity completed by Southern California Edison at the San Dieguito Lagoon River inlet.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

Representatives from USACE will give a presentation on the current status of the Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project to inform the City Council and the public about the potential impacts of this project to the City of Del Mar.
2 November 14, 2022 Item 02

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 17, 2022 – VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar California 92014
The minutes set forth the actions taken by the City Council on the matters stated. Audio/video recordings of the City Council proceedings are retained for a period of ten years, in accordance with the City's Records Retention Schedule. Audio/video recordings, as well as written materials presented to the City Council, including Red Dots (materials provided to the City Council after the agenda has published), are available on the City’s website at www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter or by contacting the Administrative Services Department at (858) 755-9313.

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Worden called the Regular Meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.

ROLL CALL

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

CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Attorney Leslie Devaney reported that there were no recusals or reportable actions for the October 17, 2022, City Council Closed Session meeting. She also responded to an inquiry from an attorney regarding the noticing for the closed session agenda Item A by clarifying that for items where the facts and circumstances of the item are not yet known, no description of the item is needed on the agenda, and that the Closed Session Agenda was properly noticed.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Worden led the Pledge of Allegiance.

PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.

CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS & COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Ashley Jones reported that the deck treatment for the Torrey Pines Bridge Deck would begin October 18, 2022, with work to be completed by October 20, 2022; and the November 2022 Election including ballot drop box information and details about how to view the Del Mar Candidate Forum held on October 10, 2022.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk Sarah Krietor read the titles of the items included on the Consent Calendar. There were no public speakers for the consent calendar items.

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER DRUKER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GAASTERLAND TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1 THROUGH 8, 10-16, 23, WITH MAYOR WORDEN RECUSED FROM ITEM 12 PERTAINING TO BELLAIR ST. AND 1 November 14, 2022 Item 04
City Council Regular Minutes
October 17, 2022

Page 2 of 9 ends

COUNCILMEMBER DRUKER RECUSED FROM ITEM 12 PERTAINING TO ALLEY BETWEEN 9 TH AND 10TH ST. (VOTE 5-0)
Ayes: Mayor Worden, Deputy Mayor Martinez, and Councilmembers Druker, Gaasterland and Quirk; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.

ITEM 1: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: OCTOBER 3, 2022 REGULAR AND SPECIAL MEETING (CLERK’S MINUTES BOOK)
Council approved the minutes, on consent.

ITEM 2: RATIFICATION OF LIST OF DEMANDS, DATED OCTOBER 17, 2022 (CLERK’S FILE NO. 201-3)
Council approved the list of demands, on consent.

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

ITEM 4: APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS FOR AS-NEEDED ECONOMIC IMPACT AND FISCAL ANALYSIS CONSULTING SERVICES (CLERK’S FILE NO. 406-1)
Council approved as-needed agreements with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. and David Taussig and Associates, Inc. for as-needed economic impact and fiscal analysis consulting services for an initial three year period effective October 17, 2022, and ending October 17, 2025; and authorized the City Manager to execute the agreements, on consent.

ITEM 5: APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS FOR AS-NEEDED GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES (CLERK’S FILE NO. 406-1)
Council approved consulting services agreements with Atlas Technical Consultants LLC and Barnett Quality Control Services, Inc. dba NOVA Services, Inc. to provide as-needed geotechnical services for an initial three-year period effective November 19, 2022, and ending November 19, 2025; and authorized the City Manager to execute the agreements, on consent.

ITEM 6: AGREEMENT WITH UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CALIFORNIA, INC. FOR PORTABLE RESTROOM SERVICES (CLERK’S FILE NO. 406-1)
Council awarded an agreement with United Site Services of California, Inc. (United Site Services) for portable restroom services for an initial three-year period effective November 1, 2022, and ending November 1, 2025; and authorized the City Manager to execute the agreement, on consent.

ITEM 7: FIRST AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENTS FOR AS-NEEDED GENERAL ENGINEERING; SURVEYING; AND FATS, OIL, AND GREASE PROGRAM SERVICES (CLERK’S FILE NO. 406-1)
2 November 14, 2022 Item 04
City Council Regular Minutes
October 17, 2022

Page 3 of 9 ends

Council approved the First Amendment to the Agreement between the City of Del Mar and Dudek for as-needed general engineering (construction management) services for an additional two-year period ending November 18, 2024; approved the First Amendment to the Agreement between the City of Del Mar and PSOMAS for as-needed surveying services for an additional two-year period ending November 18, 2024; approved the First Amendment to the Agreement between the City of Del Mar and Mikhail Ogawa Engineering Inc. for as-needed Fats, Oil, and Grease program services for an additional two-year period ending November 18, 2024; and authorized the City Manager to execute the First Amendments, on consent.

ITEM 8: LAGOON COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-5) Council re-appointed Karen Lare to the Lagoon Committee as a voting member to serve a second full three-year term starting October 31, 2022, and ending on October 31, 2025, on consent.

ITEM 9: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CIVIC CENTER OPERATIONS AND SPECIAL EVENT

PLAN RELATED TO APPROVED USERS OF THE CIVIC CENTER FACILITIES (CLERK’S FILE NO. 103-4)
The item was pulled from the consent calendar. Council discussion focused on concerns related to WildCoast’s position on sea-level rise; rational and evaluation criteria used in the Civic Center Operations and Special Events Plan related to allowing non-profits to use City facilities; desire to understand WildCoast’s Del Mar work plan and community impact; desire to understand the demand and usage for the Civic Center facilities; and desire to revisit the City’s overall policy related to non-profits use of the Civic Center and other City facilities.

Council consensus was to direct staff to look at the non-profit City facility use policy in a broader way and to bring the item back at a future meeting for City Council to consider a comprehensive update to the policy and Civic Center Operations and Special Event Plan.

ITEM 10: MAYOR'S MONARCH PLEDGE RESOLUTION (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-1) Council adopted Resolution 2022-64, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE MAYOR’S MONARCH PLEDGE TO

RAISE AWARENESS ABOUT THE DECLINE OF THE MONARCH BUTTERFLY AND THE SPECIES’ NEED FOR HABITAT”, on consent.

ITEM 11: APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR BUSINESS LICENSE TAX AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES (CLERK’S FILE NO. 406-1)
Council approved the professional services agreement (Agreement) with Hinderliter De Llamas & Associates (HdL) for business license tax and administrative services for an initial three-year period effective October 17, 2022, and ending October 17, 2025; and authorized the City Manager to execute the agreement, on consent.

ITEM 12: APPROVAL OF A TASK ORDER WITH PSOMAS TO PERFORM ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE 2023 WATER, WASTEWATER, PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (CLERK’S FILE NO. 406-1)
3 November 14, 2022 Item 04
City Council Regular Minutes
October 17, 2022

Page 4 of 9 ends

Council approved a $66,510 task order with as-needed engineering consultant PSOMAS to perform design services for the 2023 Water, Wastewater, Pavement Improvements Project; and authorized the City Manager to execute the Task Order, on consent.

ITEM 13: ADOPTION OF THE 2022 FIRE CODE (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-4, 401-9, 1101-8) Council adopted Ordinance 993, “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 10.04 OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT THE INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE 2021 EDITION AND THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 2022 EDITION, INCLUDING APPENDIX B AND I, WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS” as introduced on October 3, 2022, on consent.

ITEM 14: ADOPTION OF THE 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-4, 401-9, 801-4)
Council adopted Ordinance 994, “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING DEL MAR MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER

23.12 (CALIFORNIA CODES FOR CONSTRUCTION) BY AMENDING SECTIONS

23.12.010, 23.12.012, 23.12.018, 23.12.020, 23.12.030, 23.12.040, 23.12.050,

23.12.060, 23.12.062, 23.12.063, 23.12.070, 23.12.080 AND 23.12.090; BY

CONFIRMING THAT THE LOCALLY ADOPTED AMENDMENTS IN EXISTING SECTIONS 23.12.011, 23.12.014, 23.12.061, 23.12.064, AND 23.12.065 WILL CONTINUE TO APPLY; AND BY ADDING NEW SECTIONS 23.12.013 AND 23.12.066, ALL RELATING TO APPLICABILITY OF THE 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING

STANDARDS CODE AND ASSOCIATED NATIONAL AND STATE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION CODES WITHIN THE CITY OF DEL MAR”, as introduced on October 3, 2022, on consent.

PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM 15: PLANNING AND ENGINEERING FEE SCHEDULE ADMINISTRATIVE UPDATE (CLERK’S FILE NO. 301-16, 801-3, 802-2)
The public hearing was opened and closed. There were no public speakers. The item was moved to the consent calendar for approval of Resolution 2022-65, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ADMINISTRATIVE UPDATES TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 CITY OF DEL MAR FEE SCHEDULE FOR PLANNING AND ENGINEERING SERVICES”.

ITEM 16: CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 14, 2022 COUNCIL MEETING: DE NOVO HEARING OF TVS21-002 (CLERK’S FILE NO. 1403-7)
The public hearing was opened and closed. There were no public speakers. The public hearing was continued to November 14, 2022, on consent.

CITY COUNCIL OTHER BUSINESS
ITEM 17: CONSIDERATION OF ADDING A BUILDING ELECTRIFICATION ORDINANCE TO STAFF’S FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 WORK PLAN (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-4, 401-5) 4 November 14, 2022 Item 04
City Council Regular Minutes
October 17, 2022

Page 5 of 9 ends

An introduction of the item was provided by Mayor Worden. A presentation was provided by Sustainability Advisory Committee Building Electrification Subcommittee Members Ann Feeney and Nilmini Silva-Send.

City Manager Jones and Interim Assistant City Manager Clem Brown were available to answer Council questions. Misti Bruceri with the California Energy Codes and Standards, Statewide Reach Code Program was also available to answer Council questions.

Council questions focused on whether solar is required for new build Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), either on the ADU itself or on the main dwelling unit; estimate staff time needed to add the building electrification ordinance to the work plan; whether the Council desires to add this item to the City work plan; timing for staff to bring this item back to the City Council; whether current development applications already submitted would be required to comply with a building electrification ordinance adopted in the future; whether the City would need to hire new staff to implement a building electrification ordinance; and space needed for an electric water heater and how that may relate to Floor Area Ratio (FAR).

Mayor Worden opened the item to public comment and the following people spoke:
1) Karl Aldinger, Sierra Club
2) Serena Pelka, Climate Action Campaign
3) Mary D.

Mayor Worden closed the item to public comment.

Council discussion focused on timing for adding the item to the City’s work plan; desire to understand what items may need to be moved from the work plan in order to initiate this item sooner; support for the City Council to consider the building electrification ordinance at a future meeting; whether Del Mar staff has spoken with City of Solana Beach staff regarding the work involved in implementing a building electrification ordinance; whether the Sustainability Advisory Committee (SAC) could continue working on the ordinance and outreach in the interim; and importance of official City outreach related to any future building electrification requirements.

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER GAASTERLAND, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER

DRUKER TO SUPPORT MOVING FORWARD WITH BUILDING ELECTRIFICATION ORDINANCE

AND FOR CITY COUNCIL TO DISCUSS TIMING AT THE GOALS AND PRIORITIES WORKSHOP IN JANUARY OR FEBRUARY 2023 INCLUDING WHETHER IT IS FEASIBLE TO MOVE SOME

PORTION OF THE BUILDING ELECTRIFICATION ORDINANCE PROCESS INTO THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 WORK PLAN. (VOTE 5-0)
Ayes: Mayor Worden, Deputy Mayor Martinez, and Councilmembers Druker, Gaasterland and Quirk; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.

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
(CLERK’S FILE NO. 802-1)
Councilmember Gaasterland recused herself due to living within 500 feet of the subject matter of the initial consideration. City Attorney Devaney explained the initial consideration procedure.

Deputy Mayor Martinez disclosed that she received an email invitation from Mr. Crowe to view the site and she viewed the site but did not meet with Mr. Crowe. Councilmember Druker disclosed that he walked by the site. Councilmember Quirk disclosed that he did not visit the site recently, but he did have a 5 November 14, 2022 Item 04
City Council Regular Minutes
October 17, 2022

Page 6 of 9 ends

conversation with Mr. Crowe several months ago that was unrelated to the initial consideration. Mayor Worden disclosed that he read the red dots, visited the site, exchanged non-substantive emails with Mr.

Crowe, and asked staff whether the series of photos submitted by Mr. Crowe showing hedges were in the public right-of-way.

An introduction to the item was provided by City Manager Jones. A presentation was provided by Assistant Planner Madeline Shute. Steve Crowe the applicant/appellant presented on why he felt the item should be set for a de novo hearing.

Mayor Worden opened the item to public comment and the following people spoke:
1) Karen Lare
The following residents were present in the location of speaker Karen Lare and indicated they were in support of setting the item for de novo hearing:
2) Eddie Lare
3) Karl Willert
4) MK Campion
5) Stephen Liston
Mayor Worden closed the item to public comment.

Mayor Worden and Councilmembers Druker and Martinez indicated they would like to set the item for a de novo hearing. Council directed staff to set the item for de novo hearing at the next available meeting and notify the parties involved.

ITEM 19: CONSIDERATION OF RETAINING WALL MATERIALS FOR UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING PROJECT (CLERK’S FILE NO. 1001-2)
An introduction to the item was provided by City Manager Jones. A presentation was provided by Public Works Director Joe Bride. Planning and Community Development Director Karen Brindley was available to answer questions.

Council questions focused on staff selecting retaining wall materials that are compatible with the surrounding environment; whether staff has considered using different materials for walls that would not be visible; and whether the retaining walls go through the Design Review Board review and approval.

There were no public speakers for the item.

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER QUIRK, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GAASTERLAND TO APPROVE STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION WITH COUNCILMEMBER

GAASTERLAND SUGGESTED CHANGE THAT WILL ALLOW STAFF TO TAKE INTO

CONSIDERATION WHETHER THE WALL WILL BE VISIBLE AND USE A LESS EXPENSIVE MATERIAL IF STAFF DETERMINES THE WALL WILL NOT BE VISIBLE. (VOTE 5-0) Ayes: Mayor Worden, Deputy Mayor Martinez, and Councilmembers Druker, Gaasterland and Quirk; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.

ITEM 20: CONSIDERATION OF A LETTER TO THE NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT REGARDING LOSSAN RAIL REALIGNMENT FUNDING (CLERK’S FILE NO. 1005-2, 1506-20)
An introduction to the item was provided by City Manager Jones. A presentation was provided by Councilmember Gaasterland.
6 November 14, 2022 Item 04
City Council Regular Minutes
October 17, 2022

Page 7 of 9 ends

There were no public speakers for the item.

Council questions and discussion focused on correcting $3 million to $300 million; possible edits to the letter suggested by Mayor Worden; and cost benefit analysis used by North County Transit District (NCTD) for projects.

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER GAASTERLAND, SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR

MARTINEZ TO APPROVE DISTRIBUTING THE LETTER WITH THE TYPO CORRECTED CHANGING 3 MILLION TO 300 MILLION. (VOTE 5-0)
Ayes: Mayor Worden, Deputy Mayor Martinez, and Councilmembers Druker, Gaasterland and Quirk; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER GAASTERLAND, SECONDED BY MAYOR WORDEN

TO HAVE COUNCILMEMBER GAASTERLAND WORK WITH STAFF TO REVISE THE SENTENCE PROPOSED BY MAYOR WORDEN OF: “DEL MAR AGREES THAT OTHER

PROJECTS NCTD WOULD LIKE TO PURSUE ARE ALSO IMPORTANT, AND WE WILL

SUPPORT SEEKING FUNDING FOR THEM, BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THESE FUNDS FOR THE RELOCATION PROJECT.” (VOTE 4-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER QUIRK OPPOSED) Ayes: Mayor Worden, Deputy Mayor Martinez, and Councilmembers Druker and Gaasterland; Noes:

Councilmember Quirk; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.

ITEM 21: CONSIDERATION OF A TREE DONATION PROPOSAL FROM THE DEL MAR FOUNDATION (CLERK’S FILE NO. 1202-5, 1202-11)
An introduction to the item was provided by Mayor Worden. A presentation was provided by Del Mar Foundation representatives Julie Maxey-Allison and Betty Wheeler. City Manager Jones provided additional comments. Public Works Director Bride was available to answer questions.

Council questions and discussion focused on potential view blockage from the trees and the City’s public tree manual not addressing view blockage from public trees; drought considerations; timing for completing the planting; appreciation to Del Mar Foundation for sponsoring this item; Council desire to consider this item as part of the goals and priorities workshop in 2023; considerations related to tree placement and types of trees; and desire to refer the item to the Parks and Recreation Committee for further vetting.

There were no public speakers for the item.

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER DRUKER, SECONDED BY MAYOR WORDEN, TO HAVE

THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE TAKE A LOOK AT THE ISSUE TO DETERMINE PLACEMENT OF TREES, ETC., AND TO VET OUT WHAT AND HOW THIS CAN BE DONE WITH MINIMAL IMPACT TO CITY STAFF. (VOTE 5-0)
Ayes: Mayor Worden, Deputy Mayor Martinez, and Councilmembers Druker, Gaasterland and Quirk; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.
7 November 14, 2022 Item 04
City Council Regular Minutes
October 17, 2022

Page 8 of 9 ends

ITEM 22: CONSIDER CONTINUATION OF REMOTE PUBLIC MEETINGS IN COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953 (ASSEMBLY BILL 361) (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-7)
An introduction to the item was provided by City Manager Jones. A presentation was provided by Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk Krietor.

Council questions focused on whether other cities are meeting in-person; whether the City could consider a phased approach to resuming in-person meetings; and whether the City can facilitate hybrid meetings for public participation.

Mayor Worden opened the item to public comment and the following person spoke, Mary D. Mayor Worden closed the item to public comment.

Council discussion focused on Council’s desire to resume in-person meetings in December 2022; Council’s desire for staff to return with a plan for returning for in-person public meetings; and importance of having remote options for public participation.

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER DRUKER, SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR MARTINEZ TO RESUME IN PERSON MEETINGS IN DECEMBER 2022, WITH STAFF TO COME BACK TO CITY COUNCIL AT THE NOVEMBER MEETING TO DISCUSS THE PROCESS TO IMPLEMENT INPERSON MEETINGS. (VOTE 5-0) Ayes: Mayor Worden, Deputy Mayor Martinez, and Councilmembers Druker, Gaasterland and Quirk; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.

IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR WORDEN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GAASTERLAND TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2022-67, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL

MAR, CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953 RELATED TO ASSEMBLY BILL 361 IN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE USE OF

TELECONFERENCE OR A REMOTE MEETING PLATFORM TO FACILITATE REMOTE PUBLIC MEETINGS”. (VOTE 5-0)
Ayes: Mayor Worden, Deputy Mayor Martinez, and Councilmembers Druker, Gaasterland and Quirk; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.

ITEM 23: ADOPTION OF THE 2023 CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-1)
There were no public speakers for the item. Council adopted Resolution 2022-66 “A RESOLUTION OF

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE 2023 CALENDAR YEAR” on consent.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATION AND COUNCIL COMMITTEES/SUBCOMMITTEES/COMMUNITY

ORGANIZATION REPORTS
City Council representatives reported on the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Board of Directors; Regional Solid Waste Association (RSWA); METRO Commission/METRO Wastewater Joint Powers Authority (JPA); Sustainability Advisory Committee (SAC); and League of California Cities. 8 November 14, 2022 Item 04
City Council Regular Minutes
October 17, 2022

Page 9 of 9 ends

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Worden adjourned the meeting at 7:51 p.m.
________________________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/
City Clerk
9 November 14, 2022 Item 04

DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES

CLOSED SESSION
OCTOBER 17, 2022
Via Teleconference
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Worden called the meeting to order at 3:30 P.M.

ROLL CALL

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

CLOSED SESSION
A) Conference with Legal Counsel - Significant Exposure to Litigation Number of Cases: One
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)
Reportable Action: None.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Worden adjourned the meeting at 4:17 P.M.
________________________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/
City Clerk
10 November 14, 2022 Item 04
1 November 14, 2022 Item 05
2 November 14, 2022 Item 05
3 November 14, 2022 Item 05
4 November 14, 2022 Item 05
5 November 14, 2022 Item 05
6 November 14, 2022 Item 05
7 November 14, 2022 Item 05
8 November 14, 2022 Item 05
9 November 14, 2022 Item 05
10 November 14, 2022 Item 05
11 November 14, 2022 Item 05
12 November 14, 2022 Item 05
13 November 14, 2022 Item 05
14 November 14, 2022 Item 05
15 November 14, 2022 Item 05
16 November 14, 2022 Item 05
17 November 14, 2022 Item 05
18 November 14, 2022 Item 05
19 November 14, 2022 Item 05
20 November 14, 2022 Item 05
21 November 14, 2022 Item 05
22 November 14, 2022 Item 05
23 November 14, 2022 Item 05
24 November 14, 2022 Item 05
25 November 14, 2022 Item 05
26 November 14, 2022 Item 05
27 November 14, 2022 Item 05
28 November 14, 2022 Item 05
29 November 14, 2022 Item 05
30 November 14, 2022 Item 05
31 November 14, 2022 Item 05
32 November 14, 2022 Item 05
33 November 14, 2022 Item 05
34 November 14, 2022 Item 05
35 November 14, 2022 Item 05
36 November 14, 2022 Item 05
37 November 14, 2022 Item 05
38 November 14, 2022 Item 05
39 November 14, 2022 Item 05
40 November 14, 2022 Item 05
41 November 14, 2022 Item 05
42 November 14, 2022 Item 05
43 November 14, 2022 Item 05
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: November 14, 2022
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to the 2022 & 2023 City Council Meeting and Holiday Closure Schedules
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council: 1) Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) amending the 2022 City Council Meeting Schedule to reschedule the regular December 19, 2022, City Council Meeting to December 12, 2022; and 2) Authorize the holiday related closure of City Hall on December 27, 28 & 29, 2022, and December 27 & 28, 2023.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

Amendment to 2022 City Council Meeting Schedule
The Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section 2.20.040(A), states that, “Regular meetings of the City Council shall be held on the first and third Monday of each month,” and further states that, “The City Council may, by resolution, designate another date, time, and location for a regular meeting.”
To avoid holding a public meeting on a holiday week, Deputy Mayor Martinez and Councilmember Gaasterland have requested the City Council consider rescheduling the December 19, 2022, regular City Council meeting to Monday, December 12, 2022. The City will receive the election results for the November 8, 2022, General Municipal Election from the County Registrar of Voters no later than December 8, 2022, which will allow the City Council to certify the election results and handle other administrative business associated with the election at the December 12, 2022 meeting.

It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution (Attachment A) amending the 2022 City Council meeting schedule to reschedule the second meeting in December to December 12, 2022, as shown in Exhibit A to the Resolution. 1 November 14, 2022 Item 07
City Council Agenda Report
Proposed Amendments to the 2022 & 2023 Council Mtg Schedule November 14, 2022

Page 2 of 2 ends

Proposed City Hall Year-End/Holiday Closures
City facilities are closed each year in December/early January for the following designated City holidays: Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day.

Historically, the demand for services at City Hall the last week of December prior to the New Year’s holiday has been very low.

In past years, the City Council has authorized staff to close City facilities around holidays when it is practical to do so. Most recently, in 2020 and 2021, City Hall was closed to the public the last week of December. During this time, employees were allowed to use leave time or were able to work if they elected to do so, and no complaints from the public were received.

Due to the very low impact of prior year-end closures, staff is recommending that the Council consider similar closures for 2022 and 2023. In 2022, closure days would include December 27, 28 & 29, and in 2023, proposed closure days are December 27 & 28 (Attachments B & C).

City staff that choose to work on closure days can do so, but City Hall would be closed to the public. Beach Maintenance, public safety, parking enforcement, and public works field staff would still provide a standard level of service to the public.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this item. Employees will be required to use their own accrued leave time if they choose not to work on the additional City Hall closure dates.

NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This is an operational item unrelated to City Council Goals & Priorities.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Resolution Amending the 2022 City Council Meeting Schedule Exhibit A to Attachment A- Amended 2022 City Council Meeting Schedule Attachment B- 2022 City Council Meeting Schedule with proposed City facility closures Attachment C- 2023 City Council Meeting Schedule with proposed City facility closures 2 November 14, 2022 Item 07
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL

MAR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE REGULAR MEETING
SCHEDULE OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE 2022 CALENDAR
YEAR
WHEREAS, Del Mar Municipal Code Section 2.20.040 Regular Meetings, Subsection A, states that “Regular” meetings of the City Council shall be held on the first and third Monday of each month in the City Council Chambers; and WHEREAS, Del Mar Municipal Code Section 2.20.040 Regular Meetings, Subsection B, states, “The City Council may, by resolution, designate another date, time, and location for a regular meeting;” and
WHEREAS, Council adopted Resolution No. 2009-40 establishing procedures for setting the Council meeting schedule on an annual basis; and WHEREAS, it is important that the public know and understand when the City Council will conduct its regular meetings; and
WHEREAS, it is important that there be flexibility in the schedule of regular meetings in order to complete the City’s business; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 2021-47 was adopted on November 1, 2021, approving the 2022 City Council Regular Meeting Schedule; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 2022-55 was adopted on July 25, 2022, adding a regular City Council meeting on August 10, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is necessary to reschedule the regular City Council meeting from December 19, 2022, to December 12, 2022, to conduct time sensitive City business.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, that the City Council hereby amends the City Council Regular Meeting Schedule for the 2022 calendar year to cancel the December 19, 2022, regular meeting and add a regular meeting on December 12, 2022, as shown in Exhibit A to this Resolution, and directs the City Clerk to post the amended schedule at City Hall and on the City’s website.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held this 14th day of November, 2022. _____________________________
Dwight Worden, Mayor
City of Del Mar
3 November 14, 2022 Item 07
Resolution No. 2022-___

Page 2 of 2 ends

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CITY OF DEL MAR
I, SARAH KRIETOR, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2022-__, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 14th day of November 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
4 November 14, 2022 Item 07
City of Del Mar
1050 Camino Del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 | 858.755.9313 | www.delmar.ca.us 2022 City Council Regular Meeting Schedule
Regular Meetings are held at the Del Mar Town Hall, 1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, or remotely due to COVID-19, at 4:30 p.m. on the date shown, unless otherwise noted on the published agenda. Special Meetings and/or Workshops may be held in an alternate location or remotely during COVID-19 as posted on the agenda.

DATE MEETING TYPE
Monday, January 10, 2022 Regular
Monday, February 7, 2022 Regular
Tuesday, February 22, 2022 Regular
Monday, March 7, 2022 Regular
Monday, March 21, 2022 Regular
Monday, April 4, 2022 Regular
Monday, April 18, 2022 Regular
Monday, May 2, 2022 Regular
Monday, May 18, 2022 Regular
Monday, June 6, 2022 Regular
Monday, June 20, 2022 Regular
Monday, July 6, 2022 Regular
Monday, July 11, 2022 Regular
Monday, July 25, 2022 Regular
Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 2 PM Regular
Tuesday, September 6, 2022 Regular
Monday, September 19, 2022 Regular
Monday, October 3, 2022 Regular
Monday, October 17, 2022 Regular
Monday, November 14, 2022 Regular
Monday, December 5, 2022 Regular
Monday, December 12, 2022 Regular
Adopted by Resolution 2021-47; Amended by Resolution 2022-55; Amended by Resolution 2022-XX 5 November 14, 2022 Item 07

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 27 28 29 30 31
30 31

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
30 31
Key:

City Council Meeting
City Holiday
Special Meetings February / March, City Council Goal Setting Workshop Proposed City facility closures Approved 7/25/2022
2022 Del Mar City Council Meeting Calendar
July August September
October November December
January February March
April May June
6 November 14, 2022 Item 07

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 30 31 26 27 28 26 27 28 29 30 31

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 31

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 1 2
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Key:

City Council Meeting
City Holiday
Special Meetings City Council Goal Setting Workshop & Budget Workshop Dates TBD Proposed City facility closures Approved 10/17/2022
2023 Del Mar City Council Meeting Calendar
July August September
October November December
January February March
April May June
7 November 14, 2022 Item 07
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Kseniia Izgarskaia, Associate Management Analyst
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: November 14, 2022
SUBJECT: Administrative Updates to City Employee Retirement Plan Options REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) terminating the MissionSquare City Manager Retirement Plan 401(a); and 2) Adopt Resolutions (Attachments B and C) adding a Roth option to the City’s MissionSquare Retirement and CalPERS 457(b) Plans.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

The City offers full-time employees the option to participate in voluntary saving programs that employees can elect to contribute to within established Internal Revenue Service (IRS) limits.

Annually, the City evaluates its plan options to ensure all administrative agreements are current and that the City is offering desirable voluntary retirement plan benefits in order to remain competitive and retain highly skilled employees.

City Manager Retirement Plan 401(a)
On November 15, 1999, the City of Del Mar City Council approved Resolution 99-52 establishing a money purchase retirement plan on behalf of the City Manager. The retirement plan (City Manager Retirement Plan 401(a)) is administered by the ICMA Retirement Corporation (now MissionSquare Retirement) and the funds held in such are invested in the ICMA Retirement Trust. This plan has been used on and off over the years based on the benefit elections of different city managers.

Pursuant to the terms of the City Manager’s employment agreement, the City makes an annual contribution into one of the City’s qualified Deferred Compensation Plans of the City Manager’s choosing, which includes 457(b) plan options through MissionSquare or CalPERS and a 401(a) through MissionSquare. Currently, the City Manager Retirement Plan 401(a) is inactive, as the City contributes to the 457(b) deferred compensation plan on behalf of the current City Manager. As such, there is no longer a need to maintain the City Manager Retirement Plan 401(a). Additionally, unlike 457(b) plans which are flexible, the City’s 401(a) City Manager plan was established with employer contribution rules that include mandatory 1 November 14, 2022 Item 08
City Council Agenda Report
Administrative Updates to City Employee Retirement Plan Options November 14, 2022

Page 2 of 2 ends

and irrevocable contributions for the City Manager; therefore, it is necessary for the City to terminate the plan in order to comply with IRS regulations and ensure the City is not obligated to contribute to the 401(a) plan when the City Manager elects to have their contractual employer contributions paid to a 457(b) plan instead. A Council resolution (Attachment A) is needed in order to amend the current agreement with MissionSquare and cancel the money purchase retirement plan on behalf of the City.
457(b) Plan Roth Options
The City currently offers full-time employees the option of voluntarily enrolling in standard 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plans offered by CalPERS and MissionSquare, and Roth Plans are not an option. Based on feedback from employees and an analysis of voluntary retirement benefits offered by other agencies, staff recommends that the City initiate the adoption of the 457(b) Roth Plans available through CalPERS and MissionSquare. There is no cost and minimal administrative impacts to the City to provide Roth 457(b) options to employees.

Unlike a standard 457(b) plan where employees make pre-taxed contributions (which are taxed at withdrawal), a Roth 457(b) plan allows employees the opportunity to invest with after tax contributions and withdraw funds tax-free upon retirement. This may help employees accumulate savings of tax-free income in retirement, which could mean higher net distributions upon retirement.

While adding Roth plan option benefits is at the discretion of the City Manager, staff has historically brought retirement plan amendments to the City Council for consideration and adoption via resolution. As such, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolutions (Attachment B and C) adding a Roth plan benefit option to its 457(b) plans with MissionSquare and CalPERS, respectively.

FISCAL IMPACT:

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

Cancelling the City Manager Retirement Plan 401(a) will not have any financial impact to the City as the plan is currently inactive and has no participants. Additionally, there is no cost to the City to adopt 457(b) Plan Roth options for both CalPERS and MissionSquare, as contributions to these plans are made solely by City employees and no City match is provided.

NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This is an operational item and is not related to City Council goals and priorities.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Resolution Terminating the City Manager 401(a) Plan Attachment B – Resolution Amending the MissionSquare 457(b) Plan to add a Roth option Attachment C – Resolution Amending the CalPERS 457(b) Plan to add a Roth option 2 November 14, 2022 Item 08
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL

MAR, CALIFORNIA, TERMINATING THE CITY MANAGER
RETIREMENT PLAN 401(A) ADMINISTERED BY MISSIONSQUARE

RETIREMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar provides deferred compensation benefits to the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, on November 15, 1999, the City of Del Mar City Council approved Resolution 99-52 establishing a money purchase retirement plan on behalf of the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, the established money purchase retirement plan (City Manager Retirement Plan 401(a))(Plan) was administered by the ICMA Retirement Corporation (now MissionSquare Retirement) and the funds held in such were invested in the ICMA Retirement Trust; and
WHEREAS, the Plan is not currently active due to the present City Manager’s benefit elections; and
WHEREAS, as there is no longer a need to maintain the City Manager Retirement Plan 401(a), the City Council desires to terminate the money purchase retirement plan with MissionSquare on behalf of the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, the City’s 401(a) City Manager plan was established with employer contribution rules that include mandatory and irrevocable contributions for the City Manager; therefore, it is necessary for the City to terminate the plan in order to comply with Internal Revenue Service regulations and ensure the City is not obligated to contribute to the 401(a) plan when the City Manager elects to have their contractual employer contributions paid to a 457(b) plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, hereby approves the termination of the City Manager Retirement Plan 401(a) (Plan # 107416) with MissionSquare Retirement.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that City Council Resolution 99- 52 is rescinded.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held this 14th day of November 2022. _____________________________
Dwight Worden, Mayor
City of Del Mar
3 November 14, 2022 Item 08
Resolution No. 2022-XX

Page 2 of 2 ends

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CITY OF DEL MAR
I, Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2022-XX, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 14th day of November 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_______________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
4 November 14, 2022 Item 08
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL

MAR, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE

MISSIONSQUARE RETIREMENT DEFERRED COMPENSATION
457(B) PLAN TO ADD A ROTH OPTION
WHEREAS, the City has established a deferred compensation 457(b) Plan (Plan) administered by MissionSquare Retirement which serves the interest of the City by providing employees voluntary desirable retirement benefit options, which is common among other local governments and assists the City in the attraction and retention of competent personnel; and
WHEREAS, based on feedback provided by employees and a survey of what benefits are provided by other local governments throughout the region, the City wishes to add a Roth 457(b) Plan contribution option to its existing MissionSquare Retirement Plan therefore providing employees with additional voluntary benefit options with no cost and little administrative impact to the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute any necessary paperwork to amend the City’s MissionSquare Retirement Plan to add a Roth option including executing the 457 Government Plan and Trust Optional Provisions Election Form included as Exhibit A to this Resolution.

Page 2 of 2 ends

ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_______________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
6 November 14, 2022 Item 08
7 November 14, 2022 Item 08
8 November 14, 2022 Item 08
9 November 14, 2022 Item 08
10 November 14, 2022 Item 08
11 November 14, 2022 Item 08
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL

MAR, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
CALPERS RETIREMENT DEFERRED COMPENSATION 457(B)

PLAN TO ADD A ROTH OPTION
WHEREAS, the City has established a deferred compensation 457(b) Plan (Plan) administered by CalPERS which serves the interest of the City by providing employees voluntary desirable retirement benefit options, which is common among other local governments and assists the City in the attraction and retention of competent personnel; and WHEREAS, based on feedback provided by employees and a survey of what benefits are provided by other local governments throughout the region, the City wishes to add a Roth 457(b) Plan contribution option to its existing CalPERS Retirement Plan therefore providing employees with additional voluntary benefit options with no cost and little administrative impact to the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute any necessary paperwork to amend the City’s CalPERS Retirement Plan to add a Roth option including executing the CalPERS 457 Plan Roth Adoption Form included as Exhibit A to this Resolution.

Page 2 of 2 ends

ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_______________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
13 November 14, 2022 Item 08
14 November 14, 2022 Item 08
15 November 14, 2022 Item 08
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Council Members Terry Gaasterland and Dan Quirk, Liaisons to the Finance Committee
Prepared by Nestor Machado, Management Analyst
DATE: November 14, 2022
SUBJECT: Finance Committee Appointment
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

The City Council Liaisons to the Finance Committee recommend that the City Council appoint Michael Minter as a voting member to the Committee to serve a full three-year term starting November 14, 2022, and ending on November 30, 2025.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

The Finance Committee serves as an advisory committee to the City Council and reviews and provides recommendation on City finances including updates to the City’s operating and capital budgets, budget forecasts and trends in revenue, expenditure, project costs, and cash flow; Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR); CalPERS Cost Sharing Pool Reports and related annual contributions to the Pension Reserve Fund; City’s Pension Reserve Policy; financial metrics; City financial policies; and other City Council assignments such as long-term planning, fee assessments, sources of possible revenues.

There is currently one vacancy on the Committee. City staff advertised the vacancy, and one Citizen Interest Form was received during the recruitment period from Michael Minter (Attachment A). The Council Liaisons to the Committee have reviewed the application and recommend that the City Council appoint Michael Minter as a voting member for a full threeyear term effective November 14, 2022, and ending on November 30, 2025.

If the recommended appointment is approved by the City Council, the Committee will have a full roster with no remaining vacancies. A copy of the current Committee roster is included as Attachment B.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Citizen Interest Form
Attachment B – Current Finance Committee Roster
1 November 14, 2022 Item 09

Page 1 ends

THIS IS A PUBLIC RECORD SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE.

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

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

Education:

Minter Michael G
Del Mar, CA X
I am an insurance technology entrepreneur and have launched a few companies that help insurance companies manage risk (mainly around natural catastrophes) and to distribute their products. I currently own an insurance agency licensed in 40 states that focuses on high net worth personal insurance.

I am applying for a spot on the Finance Committee because I would like to get more involved in the Del Mar community and I think that I can make the most immediate impact on this committee.

BA, University of Texas
2 November 14, 2022 Item 09

Page 2 ends

THIS IS A PUBLIC RECORD SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE.

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

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

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

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

NAME STREET NAME (no house
number)
Phone Number
Residency
Month Year
I have been a resident of California since:

I have been a resident of San Diego County since:

I have been a resident of Del Mar since:

Are you a full-time or part-time resident of Del Mar? ☐ Full-time ☐ Part-time
Is Del Mar your primary place of residence? ☐ Yes ☐ No
Are you a register voter in Del Mar? ☐ Yes ☐ No
I have just finished a multi-year project building a house in Del Mar and as a result learned a lot about how the town works.

Steve Quirk 23rd Street Ryan McGovern 23rd Street Warren Spieker Avenida Primavera August 2020 August 2020 August 2020 ✔ ✔
✔
3 November 14, 2022 Item 09

Page 3 ends

THIS IS A PUBLIC RECORD SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE.

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

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

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

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

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

What aspects of the City’s finances most interest you and why? My financial experience comes from starting and running technology companies. This included developing a business plan to raise money, projecting revenues and managing all expenses. I also participated in bidding out 3rd party providers and responding to bids for the businesses.

I am specifically interested in unique ways that we can increase revenues and reduce unnecessary expenses as well as long-term planning to ensure Del Mar stays financially sound and keeps it's charm.
4 November 14, 2022 Item 09

Page 4 ends

THIS IS A PUBLIC RECORD SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What aspects of the City’s parks and recreation most interest you and why? 5 November 14, 2022 Item 09

Page 5 ends

THIS IS A PUBLIC RECORD SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Undergrounding Project Advisory Committee
The Undergrounding Project Advisory Committee is seeking applicants with an interest in the citywide undergrounding project. To avoid conflicts of interest, members of the Undergrounding Project Advisory Committee cannot concurrently serve on the Measure Q Citizen Oversight Committee.

Geographic diversity is desirable and will be taken into account. What part of town do you live in? Check the neighborhood map to verify your neighborhood.
☐ North Bluff ☐ North Beach
☐ South Beach ☐ Village Center
☐ South Bluff ☐ South Hills
☐ North Hills ☐ Valley
6 November 14, 2022 Item 09

Page 6 ends

THIS IS A PUBLIC RECORD SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE.

Note: Personal information may be withheld from public view as allowed by law Is your utility service undergrounded? What involvement did you have, if any? What aspects of being on the Utility Undergrounding Advisory Committee most interest you? Thank you for completing the Citizen Interest Form. Is there anything else you would like to add to your application for the City Council to consider? IV. SIGNATURE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Please review the important information below before signing and submitting your application. Please note that recommendations for appointments to City advisory committees (other than the Planning Commission and Design Review Board) are made by the Council Liaisons to that Committee. The appointments are then placed on the consent calendar for consideration for approval by the full City Council at the next available City Council meeting. For reasons of privacy, the individual candidates are not discussed at the meeting.

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

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

By submitting this application, you are signing under penalty of perjury that the information you are providing, is true and correct to the best of your knowledge. __ __________________________
Signature Date
Within three (3) business days you will receive a confirmation email that your application is received. If you have questions, please email [email protected] or call (858) 755-9313 and a staff member will get back to you promptly.

In conclusion, our family found this amazing town many years ago and it took us a while to line everything up to be able to move our family here. It is my favorite place on earth and I want to do my part to ensure it stays that way. 10/21/2022 7 November 14, 2022 Item 09
City of Del Mar
Finance Committee
Appointing Authority City Council
K. Alan Lonbom
2nd Term Jul 31, 2020 - Jul 31, 2023
Appointing Authority City Council
Position Vice Chair
Tom L Tullie
2nd Term Nov 09, 2020 - Nov 09, 2023
Appointing Authority City Council
Position Chair
Jeffrey G. Sturgis
2nd Term Nov 09, 2020 - Nov 09, 2023
Appointing Authority City Council
Position Secretary
Laura Pierce
1st Term Jul 31, 2021 - Jul 31, 2024
Appointing Authority City Council
Jas K Grewal
2nd Term Jul 31, 2021 - Jul 31, 2024
Appointing Authority City Council
Laura S Demarco
1st Term May 02, 2022 - May 31, 2025
Board Roster
Finance Committee Page 1 of 2
8 November 14, 2022 Item 09
Appointing Authority City Council
William T Scott
1st Term Aug 01, 2022 - Aug 31, 2025
Appointing Authority City Council
Steven Allen Mcdowell
1st Term Aug 01, 2022 - Aug 31, 2025
Appointing Authority City Council
Vacancy
Finance Committee Page 2 of 2
9 November 14, 2022 Item 09
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Madeline Shute, Assistant Planner
Karen Brindley, Planning and Community Development Director Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: November 14, 2022
SUBJECT: Encroachment Permit (EP) EP22-082 – SANDAG Bluff Stabilization V Improvements Relating to Shoreline Protection, Drainage Improvements, and Required Mitigation (Beach access for construction at 18th Street and adjacent to APNs: 299-240-01, 299-240-23)
Applicant: San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) on behalf of North County Transit District (NCTD)
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council: 1) Adopt the Resolution (Attachment A) conditionally approving Encroachment Permit EP22-082 to authorize bluff stabilization improvements relating to shoreline protection, drainage improvements, required mitigation, and authorizing access for construction along the beach, south bluff, and adjacent to private property at APNs 299-240-01 and 299-240-23 (from 15th Street south to Carmel Valley Road) and; 2) Authorize the City Manager to waive associated planning application fees in the amount of $1,941.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

On July 22, 2022, the California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission) issued a federal consistency certification for the SANDAG/NCTD bluff stabilization project (Project) to stabilize the bluffs and existing railroad facilities within the NCTD railroad right-of-way, State public trust lands, and City of Del Mar property and right-of-way. The primary purpose is to increase the safety and reliability of existing passenger rail services on the Los AngelesSan Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) corridor through year 2050 and maintain railroad operations along a 1.6-mile corridor between Del Mar’s Seagrove Park and Torrey Pines State Beach. Currently, LOSSAN is the only operating rail link to southern San Diego County.

SANDAG most recently provided a status report on the Project to the City Council on June 6, 2022 and is currently requesting City of Del Mar authorization to perform the associated work in the public right-of-way to repair existing retaining walls/seawalls, storm drains, flow channels, slope failures, eroded areas, and access pathways to support existing railroad infrastructure. The work is proposed to occur from June 2023 to June 2026, typically 1 November 14, 2022 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
EP22-082 (SANDAG Bluff Stabilization V)
November 14, 2022

Page 2 of 5 ends

between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Night work is also anticipated within the NCTD right-of-way.

Typically, construction work is not allowed on the beach during the summer months between Memorial Day to Labor Day. However, this is a larger project scope and longer project schedule than prior phases of the bluff stabilization project. Therefore, Coastal Commission has made an allowance and special accommodation for work to be done during the summer months. SANDAG is authorized to do work on the beach during summer weekdays when necessary. Construction will not take place during daylight hours on summer weekends from the Saturday of Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day, inclusive, except to the extent necessary to protect life and property.

SANDAG is required to submit a Construction Safety Plan to the Coastal Commission.

Submittal of the Construction Safety Plan to the City will also be required as a condition of the EP. The purpose of the plan is to coordinate the scheduled construction work with City operations and minimize/avoid beach recreation impacts to the public. The EP also includes a Community Services custom condition to require SANDAG facilitate pre-construction coordination, ensure public safety, and minimize public beach access and recreation impacts.

Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 23.28 requires an EP for work and improvements in the public right-of-way. Requests for construction access are typically approved at the staff level. However, improvements that extend above the level of the sidewalk, roadway, or adjacent grade require City Council approval. Therefore, the request was consolidated into one permit application for City Council consideration and approval.

SANDAG is seeking authorization for the following:

Temporary Construction Access Points:
• Coast Boulevard
• 11th Street
• 10th Street
• 4
th Street
• Torrey Pines State Beach Access Road
Temporary Encroachments During Construction Work:
• 13th Street – Water line extension and irrigation control (water meter, solar panel, and irrigation equipment) installation
• 12th Street – Construction of storm drain
• Sea Orbit Lane – Drainage improvements
2 November 14, 2022 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
EP22-082 (SANDAG Bluff Stabilization V)
November 14, 2022

Page 3 of 5 ends

• Little Orphan Alley – Irrigation control (water meter, solar panel, and irrigation equipment) installation
• 4
th Street – Drainage improvements
Access construction locations along the beach and south bluff via 18th Street (will maintain pedestrian access), Coast Boulevard (between 15th Street and 17th Street), 10 th Street, 9th
Street, 8
th Street, 7th Street, to supplement access that will occur via the Torrey Pines State Beach parking lot located south of the City of Del Mar’s jurisdictional boundary. Staging will occur within the NCTD railroad right-of-way (which varies in width). Coordination with Del Mar’s Community Services Department is a required condition of permit approval for EP22- 082.

Permanent Encroachments:
• Near 15th St – Drainage outlet to beach
• South of 15th St to 11th St – Construction of a seawall at the beach (bluff toe), fill and vegetation placement above the seawall, construction of drainage outlet on the beach, removal of existing chute and bowl
• North of 8th St to 7th St – Modification of drainage outlet on the beach and construction of seawall at the beach (bluff toe), fill and vegetation placement above the seawall
• South of 6th St – Drainage outlet to beach
• Storm drain replacement at end of 12th St
The remaining scope of approved bluff stabilization work is not included within the requested EP permit because it would occur within the NCTD railroad right-of-way.

However, it is still scheduled to occur in accordance with the Coastal Commission consistency certification action as summarized below:

Other Project Components within NCTD ROW:
• Installation of new solider piles, grade beams, and tiebacks; and retrofit of existing piles with grade beams and tiebacks
• Installation of drainage improvements including new concrete drainage channels, replacement of existing drainage channels, and associated supporting structures for drainage channels
Notice of the EP application was provided to all owners of property within 300-feet of the project site. As of the writing of this report, no objections have been received.

Pursuant to Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section 23.28.070, there are six required findings for approval, which generally relate to public safety, intended use of the right-of3 November 14, 2022 Item 10 City Council Agenda Report
EP22-082 (SANDAG Bluff Stabilization V)
November 14, 2022

Page 4 of 5 ends

way, community character, aesthetics, and conversion of public land for private use. Staff has provided suggested findings for permit approval below.

Finding 1. The proposed encroachment will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, or the surrounding property.

The proposed improvements will maintain existing public use of the surrounding right-ofway and will not obstruct accessibility or endanger public health, safety, or welfare. The bluff stabilization and drainage improvements are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare.

Finding 2. The proposed encroachment will not unreasonably interfere with the intended use of a City Right-of-Way or Easement.

The proposed access and improvements will not unreasonably interfere with the public use of the beach and park. The Applicant is required to coordinate with the Community Services Department during the entirety of the construction process to ensure public safety and public beach access and recreation impacts are minimized to the maximum extent practicable.

Finding 3. The proposed encroachment will not have an adverse impact on the welfare of the community or on the community’s appearance or aesthetics.

The Coastal Commission issued a federal consistency certification for the proposed bluff stabilization improvements relating to shoreline protection, drainage improvements, and required mitigation in the SANDAG/NCTD railroad right-of-way, State public trust lands, and the City of Del Mar property and right-of-way to ensure stabilization of the 1.6-mile railroad corridor for increased reliability of existing passenger rail services in the LOSSAN corridor.

The City’s authority for the EP is tied to authorization of access for construction along the beach, south bluff, and adjacent to private property at APNs 299-240-01 and 299-240-23 (from 15th Street south to Carmel Valley Road). The proposed improvements are generally consistent with the character of the existing bluff stabilization and railroad easement improvements and generally maintain the size and locations of existing features of the site as implemented in prior bluff stabilization project phases.

Finding 4. The proposed encroachment will not cause an unnecessary change in the character of the community.

The Coastal Commission issued a federal consistency certification for the proposed bluff stabilization improvements relating to shoreline protection, drainage improvements, and required mitigation in the SANDAG/NCTD railroad right-of-way, State public trust lands, and the City of Del Mar property and right-of-way to ensure stabilization of the 1.6-mile railroad 4 November 14, 2022 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
EP22-082 (SANDAG Bluff Stabilization V)
November 14, 2022

Page 5 of 5 ends

corridor for increased reliability of existing passenger rail services in the LOSSAN corridor.

The proposed encroachments are generally within the same locations as the previous shoreline protection, drainage improvements, and bluff stabilization improvements implemented in prior bluff stabilization project phases. No change in use is proposed to occur.

Finding 5. The proposed encroachment will not be a detriment to the interests of the general public.

The proposed improvements will not permanently interfere with any present or future public use. Proposed improvements do not interfere with existing vehicular or pedestrian mobility of the surrounding right-of-way. The pedestrian path improvements, in particular, will enhance mobility along existing pathways in the City of Del Mar.

Finding 6. The proposed encroachment will not convert significant areas of public property to private use.

The proposed encroachments will not convert any existing public use areas to private use.

All proposed improvements will enhance existing public use of these areas.

FISCAL IMPACT:

As is common practice among government agencies, staff is recommending that the $1,941 in fees related to the processing of this EP application be waived. There is no cost to the City related to this Project. According to SANDAG, funding sources for the project include resources from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), State Transportation Improvement Program, and Transportation Development Act.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

A Categorical Exclusion determination was prepared for the project by SANDAG in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) since the FTA is acting as the federal lead agency. The project is categorically excluded from NEPA pursuant to Title 23 CFR 771.118(c)(8) which covers “maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction of facilities that occupy substantially the same geographic footprint and do not result in a change in functional use, such as: improvements to bridges, tunnels, storage yards, buildings, stations, and terminals; construction of platform extensions, passing track, and retaining walls; and improvements to tracks and railbeds.” ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Resolution of Approval
Attachment B – Proposed Improvement Plans
5 November 14, 2022 Item 10
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL
MAR, APPROVING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT EP22-082 AND

WAIVING THE PLANNING AND LAND USE APPLICATION FEE

FOR A LONG-TERM MAJOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR

IMPROVEMENTS RELATING TO THE BLUFFS STABILIZATION V
PROJECT (APNs: 299-240-01, 299-240-23) IN DEL MAR,

CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar (“City”) is the owner of the public rights-of-way way along the beach and shoreline; and
WHEREAS, San Diego Association of Governments (“Applicant”) has filed an application for an Encroachment Permit (EP22-082) seeking approval for various improvements, more specifically described in the Agenda Report and attached Encroachment Permit plans, in the public right-of-way adjacent to APNs: 299-240-01 and 299-240-23 (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 23.28 requires an Encroachment Permit (EP) for any private improvements within the public right-of-way; specifically any improvements that extend at least 12 inches above the level of the sidewalk, roadway, or adjacent grade and requires City Council approval; and WHEREAS, Section 23.28.070 of the DMMC provides that an Encroachment Permit may be approved or conditionally approved only if the decision maker makes all of the findings set forth in Section 23.28.070(C); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the project is categorically excluded from NEPA pursuant to Title 23 CFR 771.118(c)(8) which covers “maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction of facilities that occupy substantially the same geographic footprint and do not result in a change in functional use, such as:
improvements to bridges, tunnels, storage yards, buildings, stations, and terminals; construction of platform extensions, passing track, and retaining walls; and improvements to tracks and railbeds.”; and
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2022, the City Council of the City of Del Mar held a duly noticed public hearing to review the referenced entitlements, and at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include without limitation:
a. Plans submitted by the applicant;
b. Written information submitted with the application;
c. Agenda Report, dated November 14, 2022, incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein;
6 November 14, 2022 Item 10
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 2 of 9 ends

e. Additional information submitted during the hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar that Encroachment Permit EP22-082 is hereby approved based on the following findings in DMMC Chapter 23.28.070 (C):

Finding 1. The proposed encroachment will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, or the surrounding property.

Finding 2. The proposed encroachment will not unreasonably interfere with the intended use of a City Right-of-Way or Easement.

Finding 3. The proposed encroachment will not have an adverse impact on the welfare of the community or on the community’s appearance or aesthetics.

The California Coastal Commission issued a federal consistency certification for the proposed bluff stabilization improvements relating to shoreline protection, drainage improvements, and required mitigation in the SANDAG/NCTD railroad right-of-way, State public trust lands, and the City of Del Mar property and right-of-way to ensure stabilization of the 1.6 mile railroad corridor for increased reliability of existing passenger rail services in the Los Angeles-San Diego (LOSSAN) corridor. The City’s authority for the Encroachment Permit is tied to authorization of access for construction along the beach, south bluff, and adjacent to private property at APNs 299-240-01 and 299-240-23 (from 15th Street south to Carmel Valley Road). The proposed improvements are generally consistent with the character of the existing bluff stabilization and railroad easement improvements and generally maintain the size and locations of existing features of the site as implemented in prior bluff stabilization project phases.

Finding 4. The proposed encroachment will not cause an unnecessary change in the character of the community.

Page 3 of 9 ends

the Los Angeles-San Diego (LOSSAN) corridor. The proposed encroachments are generally within the same locations as the previous shoreline protection, drainage improvements, and bluff stabilization improvements implemented in prior bluff stabilization project phases. No change in use is proposed to occur.

Finding 5. The proposed encroachment will not be a detriment to the interests of the general public.

The California Coastal Commission issued a federal consistency certification for the proposed bluff stabilization improvements relating to shoreline protection, drainage improvements, and required mitigation in the SANDAG/NCTD railroad right-of-way, State public trust lands, and the City of Del Mar property and right-of-way to ensure stabilization of the 1.6-mile railroad corridor for increased reliability of existing passenger rail services in the Los Angeles-San Diego (LOSSAN) corridor. The City’s authority for the Encroachment Permit is tied to authorization of access for construction along the beach, south bluff, and adjacent to private property at APNs 299-240-01 and 299-240-23 (from 15th Street south to Carmel Valley Road). The proposed improvements will not permanently interfere with any present or future public use. Proposed improvements do not interfere with existing vehicular or pedestrian mobility of the surrounding right-of-way. The pedestrian path improvements, in particular, will enhance mobility along existing pathways in the City of Del Mar.

Finding 6. The proposed encroachment will not convert significant areas of public property to private use.

The proposed encroachments will not convert any existing public use areas to private use.

All proposed improvements will enhance existing public use of these areas.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that, given the public benefits from the bluff stabilization project, including reducing City costs for construction of the City’s Powerhouse Park pathway lighting project, the City Council waives the planning and land use application fee associated with EP22-082.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that approval of EP2219-08229 shall be subject to the following conditions:

General Conditions:

GC-1 [Business License]
Prior to commencement of any work on site, all contractors and subcontractors shall obtain a valid City of Del Mar Business License. A copy of the approved Encroachment Permit shall be kept on site at all times, along with copies of the required Business Licenses for all contractors and subcontractors.

GC-2 [Development authorization limited to plan set]
8 November 14, 2022 Item 10
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 4 of 9 ends

This permit is granted based on submitted application materials dated October 11, 2022 and so identified by the staff of the Del Mar Planning Department. Revisions to these plans and/or any proposals for modification to the project shall require review and prior authorization from the appropriate entities of the City of Del Mar.

GC-3 [Compliance with City noise regulations - Allowed hours and dates of construction activity]
The applicant/owner and all parties involved with implementation of the project shall comply with the regulations of the DMMC with regard to construction noise. The regulations stipulate that all construction activities are limited to the following periods:
between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction activities are prohibited during other hours and on Sundays and City Holidays. The City’s noise ordinance, Chapter 9.20 of the Del Mar Municipal Code, includes the dates of City Holidays, and can be viewed on the City’s web page (www.delmar.ca.us).

Additionally, no excavation or trenching shall occur within a City right-of-way on days when City of Del Mar City offices are closed. Those days include all Saturdays and Sundays and all days on which City Holidays are observed.

GC-4 [Compliance with Conditions]
The applicant/owner hereby agrees to do all work and otherwise comply with the terms and conditions of this permit, and all applicable rules and regulations of the City of Del Mar and/or other public agency.

GC-5 [Revocation of permit due to noncompliance with conditions] This permit may be revoked by the City if noncompliance is noted to the applicant and satisfactory action is not taken by the applicant or his/her agents to achieve compliance within twenty-four (24) hours of notice.

GC-6 [No Transfer in Property Interest]
The granting of an encroachment permit pursuant to this chapter shall not constitute the transfer or relinquishment of any ownership or interest held by the City over the public right-of-way, nor shall such permit confer any vested or proprietary rights upon the holder of the permit beyond the right to utilize the encroachment area in the manner authorized by the permit and subject to all of the conditions set forth herein.

The applicant/owner agrees to protect all survey markers and monuments in the vicinity of the work and agrees to replace any markers or monuments, if damaged, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.

General Planning Encroachment Conditions:
9 November 14, 2022 Item 10
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 5 of 9 ends

GEP-1 [EP – Excavation Scheduling]
No excavation or trenching shall occur within a City right-of-way on days when City of Del Mar City offices are closed. Those days include all Saturdays and Sundays and all days on which City Holidays are observed.

GEP-2 [EP – Indemnification]
By accepting this permit and implementing the development authorized herein, the applicant agrees to indemnify, defend and save the City of Del Mar, its authorized agents, officers, representatives and employees harmless from and against any and all penalties, liabilities, annoyances, or loss resulting from claims or court action and arising out of any accident, loss or damage to persons or property happening or occurring as a proximate result of any work undertaken under the permit granted pursuant to the application or by reason of the permittee's installation, operation, maintenance or removal of the encroachment.

GEP-7 [EP - Permit Expiration/Potential for Permit Extension] This permit and the authorization for use/work within a City right-of-way herein granted shall expire three years from the anticipated start date, on June 1, 2026.

The permittee may request a single Extension of Time of an approved Encroachment Permit by submitting a written request to the City Manager setting forth the reason that substantial work on the permit cannot be commenced by the scheduled expiration date.

The City Manager shall grant the extension unless he/she determines that there has been a change in circumstances since the time of the original grant of the permit which would create an inconsistency between the proposed encroachment and the provisions of DMMC Chapter 23.28. No extension shall be granted for a period greater than one (1) year.

GEP-8 [EP - Work to be performed by a Licensed Contractor] All work authorized by an Encroachment Permit shall be performed by a licensed contractor from one of the following classes: “A” General Engineering Contractor, “C34” Pipeline Contractor or a “C42” Sanitation System Contractor. A copy of such a license shall be provided to the City prior to the commencement of work, and shall be retained at the project site. This requirement may be waived by the Director when the work to be performed is limited to minor improvements or maintenance for residential property adjacent to the City right-of-way or easement and when the work will be performed by the resident or owner of the benefited residential property. This information shall be provided prior to the commencement of any work in a public right-of-way.

GEP-9 [EP - Compliance with CAL-OSHA]
10 November 14, 2022 Item 10
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 6 of 9 ends

The permittee shall obey and enforce all safety orders, rules, regulations, and recommendations of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California, CAL-OSHA, applicable to the work and shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes, and regulations. Any omission on the part of the Director to specify protective measures or devices in the Encroachment Permit shall not excuse the permittee from complying with all applicable requirements of law.

GEP-10 [EP - Timely Performance of Work]
If any part of the work performed under an Encroachment Permit is not completed within the period indicated in either the submitted application materials or the conditions of approval of the Encroachment Permit, the Director of Public Works may notify the person performing the work, in writing, to complete the work within forty-eight (48) hours thereafter, legal holidays excepted. If the work is not completed within this time period, the Director of Public Works shall have full power to perform the work, including such measures as will restore the disturbed area to a safe and passable condition until the work can be completed. The cost thereof, including any inspection and administrative overhead costs incurred by City, shall be assessed against the permittee.

GEP-13 [EP - Notification of Utility Owner]
The applicant shall notify the appropriate Public Utility a minimum of seventy-two (72) hours prior to performing any work on or adjacent to any public utility. All such work shall be done only with authorization and with inspection by the appropriate utility owner.

GEP-14 [EP - No authorization for street closure]
The permit does not authorize closure of any road or street, unless specifically stated on the permit.

GEP-16 [EP - Notification of Neighbors Prior to Commencement of Traffic Lane Disruption]
Where the proposed work will involve a temporary traffic lane closure or detour, the applicant shall notify all neighbors along the street in the area in which work will take place a minimum of five (5) calendar days prior to the commencement of any work. The notification required herein shall be provided as follows:
a. Copies of written notice shall be distributed at the properties with frontage along the street where the traffic lane disruption will occur and at properties with frontage along the affected street that are within 200 (linear) feet of the area of traffic lane disruption. A copy of the notice to be provided shall be submitted for City approval prior to distribution, and
b. Temporary signs shall be placed along both sides of the street in the area where traffic lane disruption will occur and at the points 500 feet beyond the ends of the affected street area.
11 November 14, 2022 Item 10
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 7 of 9 ends

The notice required herein shall be provided / installed (as applicable) to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development.

Public Works Conditions:

PW – [Custom Condition]
SANDAG is required to submit a Construction Safety Plan to the Coastal Commission and City of Del Mar. The purpose of the plan is to coordinate the scheduled construction work with City operations and minimize/avoid beach recreation impacts to the public.

All permanent irrigation related equipment shall be located within the NCTD right-of-way.

PW-1 [Notification of Public Works Department prior to and after Completion of Work] The applicant agrees to notify the Director of Public Works in writing at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance of time when work authorized in this permit will be started.

Applicant shall state the EP number, original date of approval and a short description of the work. Submit via email to [email protected]. Additionally, upon completion of the work, the applicant agrees to immediately notify the Director of Public Works in writing of such completion. Any improvement or modification of the right-of-way shall be subject to inspection and approval of work from the Public Works Director’s representative.

PW-3 [USA Markout]
At least 72 hours prior to the excavation of any area within a right-of-way, the applicant shall contact Underground Services Alert (USA) at (800) 422-4133 for the purpose of identifying the location of buried utilities so as to avoid disturbance thereof. All proposed dig or trench areas shall be pre-marked with white paint prior to contacting for USA markout. No work shall commence until USA markout has occurred.

The permittee is advised that the locations of utility lines may vary from those shown on project plans and that coordination with the appropriate utility companies is, therefore, imperative. Any damage or repair thereof to utility lines caused as a result of project implementation shall be the permitee’s responsibility. The applicant shall be responsible for removing or blocking out all pavement markings installed for the project immediately upon completion of the work authorized in the Encroachment Permit.

PW-4 [Traffic Control Plan]
Prior to the approval of the Encroachment Permit, the contractor shall submit a plan for traffic control prepared by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer. The plan shall be subject to the review and written approval of the Public Works Director. The plan shall be prepared in accordance with the “Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUCTD) in Construction and Maintenance Zones.” The plan shall also be prepared and implemented 12 November 14, 2022 Item 10
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 8 of 9 ends

to ensure that traffic control measures will be in place so as to protect pedestrian and motorists from any construction, equipment, or other related activities, (including parked vehicles) due to construction. If a detour for traffic is needed, a Traffic Control plan should be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Director prior to the start of work.

PW-9 [Traffic Control]
The applicant shall be responsible for informing the public of the traffic conditions existing within the construction area at all times by placement of appropriate warning and advisory signs. The applicant shall also provide and maintain all traffic control and safety items.

Permittee assumes sole and complete responsibility for the job and site conditions during the course of construction, including safety of all persons and property. This requirement shall apply continuously twenty-four (24) hours per day and shall not be limited to normal work hours. All stationary items (e.g., dumpsters, heavy equipment, construction supplies) that will be in the public right-of-way for long periods of time, including night time, needs to have the proper reflective delineation.

Community Services Conditions:

CS-1 [Custom Condition]
Prior to the commencement of work, and during the entire construction process, the applicant shall coordinate with the Community Services Department to ensure public safety and minimize public beach access and recreation impacts throughout the duration of the project.

CS-2 [Lifeguard Tower and Sight Distance]
Construction work zone barriers and equipment shall maintain sight distance from lifeguard towers. This effort is to be coordinated with the Community Services Department Lifeguard division and may be modified as necessary.

CS-3 [Flag Person and Vehicle Operations on Public Beach] The Applicant shall provide a minimum of one (1) flag person to be present during all hours of operation and movement of heavy equipment and/or vehicles on the sandy beach. In addition, during construction, the Applicant shall be subject to all safety measures required by the Community Services Department and notify staff of days that require beach transit beyond the initial transit to and return from the work area. Additional driving conditions for beach driving include: speed not in excess of five (5) mph, avoid driving on the high tide wrack line, avoid disruption of wildlife, and yield safely to pedestrians at all times.
13 November 14, 2022 Item 10
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 9 of 9 ends

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, State of California, at a Regular Meeting held on the 14th day of November 2022. ____________________________
Dwight Worden, Mayor
City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CITY OF DEL MAR
I, SARAH KRIETOR, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2022-XX, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 14th day of November 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
____ _____
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
14 November 14, 2022 Item 10
STA
STA 1502+28 STA 1475+88 STA 1465+32 1465+00 1470+00 1475+00 1480+00 1485+00 1490+00 1505+00 1500+00 1495+00 1515+00 1510+00 1530+00 1525+00 1520+00 1535+00 1540+00 1545+00 1550+00 C-101 C-102 C-103 C-104 NOTES, LEGEND AND KEY MAP - DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY SANDAG PM CHECKED BY DEL MAR BLUFFS STABILIZATION PROJECT 5 401 B Street Suite 301 San Diego, CA 92101 DATE AS SHOWN 5007812 A. DEVAUX N. KANNAN M. COOPER P. MCCOLL 07/22 07/22 07/22 07/22 PLANS FOR DEL MAR BLUFFS STABILIZATION PROJECT 5 MILE POST 244.1 TO MILE POST 245.7 (STA. 1465+32 TO STA. 1549+80) ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 1 KEY Temporary Encroachment Permanent Encroachment NCTD R/W Pedestrian Beach Access and Temporary Construction Access 15 November 14, 2022 Item 10
COAST BLVD. 1545+00 1550+00 13TH ST 12TH ST LOIS LANE 1540+00 1535+00 17TH STREET 18TH STREET

COAST BLVD
MATCHLINE STA. 1541+00 MATCHLINE STA. 1531+00
MATCHLINE STA. 1541+00 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND STAGING 1 OF 4 - 17TH STREET ACCESS DETAIL DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY SANDAG PM CHECKED BY DEL MAR BLUFFS STABILIZATION PROJECT 5 401 B Street Suite 301 San Diego, CA 92101 DATE AS SHOWN 5007812 A. DEVAUX N. KANNAN M. COOPER P. MCCOLL 07/22 07/22 07/22 07/22 18TH STREET STAGING AREA AND ACCESS DETAIL 2 16 November 14, 2022 Item 10
STA 1528+68
1520+00 1525+00 1530+00
MATCHLINE STA. 1531+00
MATCHLINE STA. 1519+50
MATCHLINE STA. 1519+50
MATCHLINE STA. 1508+00 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND STAGING 2 OF 4 - DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY SANDAG PM CHECKED BY DEL MAR BLUFFS STABILIZATION PROJECT 5 401 B Street Suite 301 San Diego, CA 92101 DATE AS SHOWN 5007812 A. DEVAUX N. KANNAN M. COOPER P. MCCOLL 07/22 07/22 07/22 07/22 3 17 November 14, 2022 Item 10
4TH ST 1500+00 1505+00
MATCHLINE STA. 1497+00
MATCHLINE STA. 1485+00
MATCHLINE STA. 1508+00
MATCHLINE STA. 1497+00 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND STAGING 3 OF 4 - DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY SANDAG PM CHECKED BY DEL MAR BLUFFS STABILIZATION PROJECT 5 401 B Street Suite 301 San Diego, CA 92101 DATE AS SHOWN 5007812 A. DEVAUX N. KANNAN M. COOPER P. MCCOLL 07/22 07/22 07/22 07/22 4 18 November 14, 2022 Item 10
CAMINO DEL MAR 1480+00 1475+00 1485+00
1470+00 S. CAMINO DEL MAR MATCHLINE STA. 1485+00
MATCHLINE STA. 1474+00
MATCHLINE STA. 1474+00 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AND STAGING 4 OF 4 - DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY SANDAG PM CHECKED BY DEL MAR BLUFFS STABILIZATION PROJECT 5 401 B Street Suite 301 San Diego, CA 92101 DATE AS SHOWN 5007812 A. DEVAUX N. KANNAN M. COOPER P. MCCOLL 07/22 07/22 07/22 07/22 5 19 November 14, 2022 Item 10
138
20 November 14, 2022 Item 10
139
21 November 14, 2022 Item 10
140
22 November 14, 2022 Item 10
141
23 November 14, 2022 Item 10
142
24 November 14, 2022 Item 10
143
25 November 14, 2022 Item 10
144
26 November 14, 2022 Item 10
145
27 November 14, 2022 Item 10
146
28 November 14, 2022 Item 10
147
29 November 14, 2022 Item 10
148
30 November 14, 2022 Item 10
149
31 November 14, 2022 Item 10
150
32 November 14, 2022 Item 10
CITY OF DEL MAR NOTES SHEET 1 OF 2 U-001 DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY SANDAG PM CHECKED BY DEL MAR BLUFFS STABILIZATION PROJECT 5 401 B Street Suite 301 San Diego, CA 92101 DATE G. SHAW AS SHOWN M. COOPER P. MCCOLL 5007812 A. DEVAUX E EXP. T TA D RETSIG RNO. N FO AL OF C R L OFESSION R CIVIL IA RE NI GNE P S E E I A E 10/22 10/22 10/22 10/22 Underground Service Alert of Southern California TOLL FREE 1-800-422-4133 TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 3019 NO EXCAVATION PERMIT IS VALID UNLESS THE CONTRACTOR CONTACTS AND OBTAINS AN INQUIRY I.D. NUMBER FROM "UNDER- GROUND SERVICE ALERT" (1-800-422-4133) AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO COMMENCING EXCAVATION. CALL: R City of Del Mar 1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 T 858.755-9313 F 858.755-2794 www.delmar.ca.us 33 November 14, 2022 Item 10
CITY OF DEL MAR NOTES SHEET 2 OF 2 U-002 DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY SANDAG PM CHECKED BY DEL MAR BLUFFS STABILIZATION PROJECT 5 401 B Street Suite 301 San Diego, CA 92101 DATE G. SHAW AS SHOWN M. COOPER P. MCCOLL 5007812 A. DEVAUX E EXP. T TA D RETSIG RNO. N FO AL OF C R L OFESSION R CIVIL IA RE NI GNE P S E E I A E 10/22 10/22 10/22 10/22 Underground Service Alert of Southern California TOLL FREE 1-800-422-4133 TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 3019 NO EXCAVATION PERMIT IS VALID UNLESS THE CONTRACTOR CONTACTS AND OBTAINS AN INQUIRY I.D. NUMBER FROM "UNDER- GROUND SERVICE ALERT" (1-800-422-4133) AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO COMMENCING EXCAVATION. CALL: R City of Del Mar 1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 T 858.755-9313 F 858.755-2794 www.delmar.ca.us 34 November 14, 2022 Item 10
13TH ST

LITTLE ORPHAN
ALLEY DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY SANDAG PM CHECKED BY DEL MAR BLUFFS STABILIZATION PROJECT 5 401 B Street Suite 301 San Diego, CA 92101 DATE G. SHAW AS SHOWN M. COOPER P. MCCOLL 5007812 A. DEVAUX E EXP. T TA D RETSIG RNO. N FO AL OF C R L OFESSION R CIVIL IA RE NI GNE P S E E I A E 10/22 10/22 10/22 10/22 U-101 IRRIGATION AT 13TH ST AND LITTLE ORPHAN ALLEY 35 November 14, 2022 Item 10
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Adriana Jaramishian, Associate Planner
Karen Brindley, Planning and Community Development Director Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: November 14, 2022
SUBJECT: De Novo Hearing of an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision on Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Application TVS21-002 TVS Applicant/Appellant: Michael and Angela Deftos
Applicant’s Address: 225 Torrey Pines Terrace
Tree Owners: Harvey and Sheryl White
Tree Owners Address: 473 Ocean View Avenue
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended the City Council adopt the Planning Commission subcommittee recommendation that included Certified Arborist Mark Wisniewski’s restoration plan dated August 2, 2022, per the attached Resolution (Attachment A), for restoring the Appellant’s scenic views, for trees #1-3, with trimming for tree #1 to commence at the soonest date as determined feasible by the City’s consulting arborist.

BACKGROUND/PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMMISION HEARINGS:

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

Application TVS21-002 was filed by Michael and Angela Deftos, and TVS21-003 was filed by Carly and Hal Michaels (Applicants). Both TSVS applications were view obstruction claims pertaining to the same trees located at 473 Ocean View Avenue. The Planning Commission reviewed the application materials and available documentation of the preexisting views, which are southern and western oriented, blue water and horizon/sky of 1 November 14, 2022 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing of Appeal of TVS21-002
November 14, 2022

Page 2 of 6 ends

the Pacific Ocean and the Torrey Pines State Reserve, from the Applicants’ PLA. A site plan depicting the locations of the trees relative to the applicants’ homes has been included as Attachment B. The PC determined for each application (in a 4-0-1 vote, with Commissioner Countryman absent) that the tree growth constituted an unreasonable obstruction of each Applicants’ primary scenic view, as observed within the last ten years.

Specifically, the PC found that trees #1-3 unreasonably obstruct the Deftos’ view and trees #1-5 obstruct the Michaels’ scenic view.

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

23.51.050.A and 23.51.050.B in support of a determination of unreasonable scenic view obstruction, the PC continued the two individual applications and appointed a subcommittee consisting of Commissioners Bakker and Farrell to work with staff regarding the development of an appropriate view restoration plan for recommendation to the full Commission. It was noted by the Commissioners that removal of a protected tree should be a last resort to restore the Applicants’ view and that view restoration and maintenance through careful trimming would be preferred, if possible. The staff report from the December 7, 2021, PC meeting has been included as Attachment C.

On August 9, 2022, the Commissioners reviewed three restoration plans submitted by certified arborists (Attachment D, described below) and the PC subcommittee recommendation, all of which included remedies for the scenic view loss from both 225 and 237 Torrey Pines Terrace. In the midst of developing a view restoration plan, the Tree Owner made the decision to change certified arborists, thus the reason for the three restoration plans (2 from the Tree Owner and 1 from the Applicants), as described in detail below.

The restoration plan submitted by the Applicants’ certified arborist Robert Walton recommended removal of tree #1 and “dropcrotch” crown reduction of trees #2-5 by no more than 20% in order to restore the views to an approximation of what existed approximately 8-9 years ago. “Dropcrotch” is a pruning technique that cuts back a tree stem to another stem that is one third the diameter size of the parent stem or larger. This plan also provided an alternative option for tree #1, which would be to “dropcrotch” the upper canopy by 5 feet and thin the rest of the canopy by 50-60%; however, this would not provide the same view restoration as removal of tree #1.

The restoration plan provided by the Tree Owner’s initial certified arborist Ted Safford disagreed with the proposals made by Robert Walton (Applicants’ Arborist) with regard to tree #1. Mr. Safford did not recommend removal of tree #1, nor did he propose crown reduction of the trees found to obstruct the Deftos’ scenic view. Instead, Mr. Safford recommended thinning the branching structure of each tree an additional 10% to allow sight lines through the trees.
2 November 14, 2022 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing of Appeal of TVS21-002
November 14, 2022

Page 3 of 6 ends

The subcommittee, having already produced a draft view restoration plan for the July PC meeting, recommended lacing and “dropcrotch” pruning to reduce the entire canopy of tree #1 by 40%, and doing the same for trees #2-5 to reduce each tree canopy by 20%.

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

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

The Planning Commission adopted two separate resolutions, one for each TSVS application that included the tree trimming plan to be performed in accordance with the view restoration plan prepared by Mr. Wisniewski dated August 2, 2022. Both resolutions included the same restorative action tree trimming plan, as the applications identified view impacts caused by the same trees. The restorative action also included the tree trimming schedule and cost sharing allocation between the Applicants for TVS21-002 (Deftos) and the Applicants for TVS21-003 (Michaels), since both applications applied to the same trees/Tree Owner. The final resolution for TVS21-002 is included as Attachment E to this report.

APPEAL AND INITIAL CONSIDERATION HEARING:

On August 12, 2022, staff was informed that a large branch from the eastern side of tree #1 of the subject applications had failed. Additional details and photographs related to the branch failure are provided below, which came from the Tree Owner’s arborist Mark Wisniewski who conducted a site visit to observe and analyze the tree post failure.

Attachment F shows photographs of tree #1 before and after the limb failure On August 15, 2022, Michael and Angela Deftos filed an appeal (Attachment G) of the Planning Commission’s restorative action determination on application TVS21-002. The Appellant identified three main points in the appeal:
3 November 14, 2022 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing of Appeal of TVS21-002
November 14, 2022

Page 4 of 6 ends

- The failure of a large limb of one of the subject trees (Tree #1), three days after the Planning Commission decision on restorative action affects the approved restoration plan in the final resolution.
- The PC approved restorative action plan: will not “reasonably” restore their scenic views lost by tree growth; involves a 5-year restoration plan in conflict with the DMMC Section 23.51.110; and does not specify the manner in which the trees should be trimmed.
- The PC’s decision was made in conflict with the Planning Commission Policy Manual and direction given by the Commission on December 7, 2021, to form a subcommittee and return with a restorative action plan for consideration by the entire Planning Commission.

The restorative action plan approved by the PC is consistent with the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC). According to DMMC 23.51.080.A.2, “the work should be completed within 30 days of receiving the Applicant’s deposit or such other period of time as the Planning Commission may determine to be reasonable and appropriate.” The Planning Commission has the authority to establish a trimming plan/schedule in order to restore the scenic view, which was included in Section 4 of PC Resolution 2022-07. The restoration process adopted by the Planning Commission for TVS21-002 is similar to that adopted by the City Council in 2006 after a De Novo hearing of TVS-05-001 related to trees located at 1232 Crest Road. In that case, the City Council adopted a three-year, phased trimming program of aggressive thinning/lacing and raising of two overlapping Torrey Pine tree canopies in order to “restore views to the maximum extent possible, in the shortest time possible, while preserving the health, structure and safety” of those specific trees. The City Council’s De Novo hearing action replaced the Planning Commission’s restoration plan that involved removing and replacing one of the two Torrey Pine trees.

On September 19, 2022, the City Council initially considered the appeal that had been filed to determine whether or not to set the matter for a de novo hearing. As part of the initial consideration, the Council received a presentation by staff, public testimony, and considered all of the current facts in the record at the time. It was the recommendation of staff that the Council set the matter for a de novo hearing based on staff’s conclusion that the limb failure was new information that was not available at the time of the PC determination for restorative action, and that the existing condition of the tree should be further evaluated in consideration with the restorative action plan approved by the PC.

The City Council voted to set the application for a de novo hearing, at a future City Council meeting.

ANALYSIS:

Upon notification of the limb failure of tree #1, the Tree Owner requested Mr. Wisniewski conduct a site visit and provide a report related to the health of the tree. In his report dated 4 November 14, 2022 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing of Appeal of TVS21-002
November 14, 2022

Page 5 of 6 ends

August 29, 2022 (Attachment H, Tree Owner Response to Appeal), Mr. Wisniewski determined the health of tree #1 was compromised by the large limb failure. Mr.

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

The Appellant subsequently requested their arborist, Robert Walton, conduct a site visit and provide observations/recommendations for tree #1. In his report dated October 13, 2022 (Attachment I), Mr. Walton agreed with Mr. Wisniewski that 40% of the live foliage of the tree had been lost due to the limb failure, and that 40% was not in the correct location to restore the Deftos’ scenic views. Mr. Walton concluded that in order to restore the scenic views, 90% of the remaining foliage would need to be removed on tree #1, which would be detrimental to the health of the tree. Mr. Walton maintained his previous recommendation that removal of tree #1 would be in the best option to restore the Appellant’s scenic views.

CORRESPONDENCE:

In the time since the initial consideration hearing, staff received one letter of correspondence, from the Tree Owner’s Representative, Adam Birnbaum (Attachment J).

In addition, this correspondence contains an updated view restoration plan from Mark Wisniewski dated November 3, 2022. This updated view restoration plan reflects Mr.

Wisniewski’s recommendation that tree #1 should not be trimmed during this season’s trimming cycle.

CONCLUSION:

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

The intent of the original Planning Commission subcommittee recommendation and the adopted view restoration plan prepared by Mark Wisniewski called for a 40% total reduction in the canopy of tree #1 over a phased period of time. The large limb failure resulted in a 40% loss of live foliage from tree #1, however, the scenic views from the Appellant PLA have not been restored. The 40% loss in live foliage was not in the correct location to have restored the scenic views. In addition, Mr. Wisniewski does not believe the required 20% trimming of tree #1, per the approved restoration plan, should occur during this first year’s trimming cycle (November-January) in order to maintain the longterm health of the tree.

While Mr. Walton agrees that 40% of the live foliage of the tree was lost, he does not agree with Mr. Wisniewski’s conclusions. Mr. Walton’s recommendation is to remove tree #1 to properly restore the Deftos’ scenic views from 10 years ago, as determined by the Planning Commission.
5 November 14, 2022 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing of Appeal of TVS21-002
November 14, 2022

Page 6 of 6 ends

Staff recommends the City Council maintain the Planning Commission’s decision on restorative action for trees #1-3, for TVS21-002, and uphold the Mark Wisniewski trimming plan dated August 2, 2022. Staff further recommends that the City’s consulting arborist conduct a site visit and provide a recommendation on trimming for tree #1, as Mark Wisniewski has recommended against any trimmings during this cycle, due to the limb failure. It is recommended that trimming of tree #1 commence at the soonest feasible date as determined by the City’s consulting arborist.

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

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Draft Resolution
Attachment B – Tree Location Map
Attachment C – December 7, 2021 Planning Commission Staff Report; TVS21-002 Attachment D – August 9, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report; TVS21-002 Attachment E – Final PC Resolution 2022-07
Attachment F – Tree #1 Photographs Before and After Limb Failure Attachment G – Appeal Request
Attachment H – Tree Owner Response to Appeal Request
Attachment I – Robert Walton Report, October 13, 2022
Attachment J – Tree Owner Correspondence, November 3, 2022 6 November 14, 2022 Item 11

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA

REGARDING TREES, SCENIC VIEWS, AND SUNLIGHT
APPLICATION TVS21-002, DETERMINING THAT THE SCENIC
VIEW FROM THE PRIMARY LIVING AREA OF 225 TORREY

PINES TERRACE IS UNREASONABLY OBSTRUCTED BY THREE
(3) TREES LOCATED AT 473 OCEAN VIEW AVENUE, AND THAT

SPECIFIC VIEW RESTORATION MEASURES ARE WARRANTED

AND REQUIRED
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2021, Michael and Angela Deftos (“APPLICANT” and Appellant), owners of 225 Torrey Pines Terrace (APN: 301-033-32-00), Del Mar, California, filed Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight application TVS21-002 (“APPLICATION”) requesting that the Planning Commission determine that three Torrey Pine trees, located at 473 Ocean View Avenue (APN: 301-033-04), owned by Harvey and Sheryl White (“TREE OWNER”), create an unreasonable obstruction of scenic views as defined by Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section 23.51.050; and
WHEREAS, the administrative record establishes that a notice of the filing of the APPLICATION was mailed to TREE OWNER on August 5, 2021; and WHEREAS, on December 7, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on application TVS21-002 which was duly noticed and at which time public testimony and related evidence was received and as summarized as follows:
a. Written documentation submitted with the Application, including information concerning the APPLICANT’s attempts to informally resolve the dispute with Tree Owner.
b. Written and relevant photographic information was submitted by the APPLICANT.
c. Written and photographic information was submitted by TREE OWNER. d. Other oral and written testimony was submitted from Staff, APPLICANT, the TREE OWNER, and members of the public.
e. The December 7, 2021 Agenda Report its facts, analysis, and conclusions are incorporated herein
f. Additional relevant factual information and considerations were submitted during the hearing, including Planning Commissioner disclosures; and WHEREAS, DMMC Section 23.51.050 (Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight Ordinance) states that prior to rendering a decision in favor of the APPLICANT, the Planning Commission shall make the following findings of facts:
7 November 14, 2022 Item 11
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 2 of 9 ends

A. That the APPLICANT contacted the TREE OWNER and made reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute consistent with DMMC Section 23.51.040(B); and B. That the Scenic View from or the Sunlight reaching the real property of the APPLICANT is being unreasonably from three trees located on TREE OWNER”S property. In determining whether the Scenic View from and/or Sunlight reaching the real property of the APPLICANT is unreasonably obstructed, the Planning Commission considered several factors, listed in the below:

1. The extent of alleged Scenic View obstruction, expressed as a percentage of the total Scenic View, and calculated by means of a surveyor’s transit or by photographs or both;

2. Documentable evidence that demonstrates the Scenic Views and/or Sunlight that existed at the time the APPLICANT purchased or began occupying a property, or in the last ten years, whichever is shorter;

3. The quality of the pre-existing Scenic View(s) and/or Sunlight being obstructed;

4. That the implementation of a Restorative Action will not create an unreasonable infringement of the Subject TREE OWNER’s privacy that could not be mitigated;

5. The extent to which the Subject Tree interferes with efficient operation of an APPLICANT’s pre-existing solar energy systems;

6. The extent to which the Subject Tree causes shadows or reduces air circulation and/or light;

7. The extent to which the APPLICANT’s Scenic Views and/or Sunlight has been diminished over time by factors other than Subject Tree growth;

8. The variety of Subject Tree, its projected rate of growth and maintenance requirements;

9. The aesthetic quality of the Subject Tree, including but not limited to species characteristics, size, growth, form and vigor;

10. The extent to which the location of the Subject Tree with respect to overall appearance, design, or use benefits the Subject TREE OWNER’s property;

11. The extent to which soil stability is provided by the Subject Tree, considering soil structure, degree of slope and extent of the Subject Tree’s root system per a report from a licensed soils engineer (if applicable); 8 November 14, 2022 Item 11
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 3 of 9 ends

12. The extent to which privacy (visual and auditory) and wind screening is provided by the Subject Tree to the owner and to neighbors;

13. The extent to which energy conservation and/or climate control is provided by the Subject Tree;

14. The extent to which wildlife habitat is provided by the Subject Tree;

15. Whether the Subject Tree is a “Protected Tree”, as defined herein and in Chapter 23.50 (Trees);

16. The value of the Subject Tree to the community/neighborhood; and

17. Whether the Subject Tree is located on public right-of-way or City-owned property; and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2021, a determination of unreasonable scenic view obstruction was made by the Planning Commission is consistent with DMMC Section

23.51.050 (A) & (B), and a subcommittee consisting of Commissioners Bakker and Farrell was appointed to work with the Applicant, Tree Owners, and aid City staff with the development of an appropriate restoration plan and provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the item was then continued to a future Planning Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on application TVS21-002 and considered a request for continuance from the Tree Owner; and WHEREAS, the Commission continued the item time certain to the August 9, 2022, Planning Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, on August 9, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed a draft Resolution reflecting the Planning Commission’s December 7, 2021, considerations and determinations, along with a proposed View Restoration Plan, prepared by the Planning Commission subcommittee, with expert opinions provided by certified arborists Robert Walton (Applicant Arborist), Ted Safford (Tree Owner‘s Former Arborist), and Mark Wisniewski (Tree Owner’s Current Arborist); and
WHEREAS, at the request of the Planning Commission, the following seven factors (as provided in a letter dated August 3, 2022, submitted by the Tree Owner’s representative, Adam Birnbaum, AMB Planning Services LLC) generally reflect the standard protocols involved in implementation and enforcement of TVS restorative actions and were considered in the determination of the required restorative action stated in Section 4 of this Resolution:

1. Confirming the timing for the first-year view-restoration pruning; 9 November 14, 2022 Item 11
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 4 of 9 ends

2. Having qualified personnel positioned on the White, Deftos, and Michaels properties to monitor the pruning, both to maximize the effectiveness of the view restoration and to protect the safety of the trees;

3. Setting a schedule for additional reduction pruning in the following years, in accordance with the Restorative Action Plan;

4. Creating a document to memorialize the White’s commitment to authorize the initial and future year(s) pruning;

5. A plan for staff review and documentation on the effectiveness of the Restorative Actions (perhaps assisted by a designated Planning Commissioner);

6. Selection of a licensed tree-care contractor to perform the work; and

7. Determining and collecting tree care service and monitoring costs per the Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Ordinance.

WHEREAS, on August 12, 2022, a large branch from the eastern side of tree #1 of the subject applications had failed, resulting in a 40% loss of live foliage on the tree; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 2022, the Applicant filed an appeal with the City Clerk of the Planning Commission’s restorative action determination; and WHEREAS, the Appellant Deftos contends that the action of the Planning Commission was not consistent with the Municipal Code because:

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

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

3. The PC’s decision was made in conflict with the Planning Commission Policy Manual and direction given by the Commission on December 7, 2021, to form a subcommittee and return with a restorative action plan for consideration by the entire Planning Commission.

WHEREAS, on September 19, 2022 the City Council of the City of Del Mar held an initial consideration hearing to determine if a De Novo hearing is appropriate; and WHEREAS, on such date the City Council of the City of Del Mar voted to set the application for a De Novo hearing; and
10 November 14, 2022 Item 11
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 5 of 9 ends

WHEREAS, on November 14, 2022, the Del Mar City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal bought by Applicant and considered all oral and written testimony and the record before them as summarized in the below:
a. Written information submitted with the Application, including information about attempts to resolve the dispute.
b. Written and photographic information submitted by the APPLICANT. c. Written and photographic information submitted by the TREE OWNER.
d. Oral testimony from Staff, the APPLICANT, the TREE OWNER, and the members of the public.
e. Oral and written agenda reports, dated November 14, 2022 incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. f. The Planning Commission hearing record and additional information submitted during the course of the de novo hearing, including any and all City Council disclosures.

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

Section 1: Determination that Applicant Fulfilled Obligations Consistent with Municipal Code and that Alternative Resolution Efforts were Attempted.

The APPLICANT contacted the TREE OWNER and made reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute as set forth in DMMC Section 23.51.050 (A) by offering to attempt resolve the view blockage dispute through mediation.

Section 2: Determination that Unreasonable Scenic View Obstruction Has Occurred
Based on substantial evidence submitted as part of the administrative record and testimony received during the public hearing of November 14, 2022, including agenda reports, public written and oral testimony, along with photographic from the Primary Living Area of the APPLICANT, in accordance with DMMC Section

23.51.050 (B), the City Council finds that scenic views or sunlight are unreasonably obstructed from the primary living area of the residence at 225 Torrey Pines Terrace pursuant to the factors of DMMC 23.51.050 (B) (2) & (3).

Section 3: Environmental Determination
Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council has analyzed the proposal and found that the 11 November 14, 2022 Item 11
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 6 of 9 ends

project is listed among the classes of project that have been determined to have a less than significant adverse effect on the environment and are, therefore, exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15304- Minor Alterations to Land. The Planning Commission further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption applies to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

Section 4: Restorative Action
The restorative actions are consistent with DMMC 23.51.110 and the failure of one large limb of subject tree #1, after the Planning Commission decision on restorative action, does not affect the ongoing actions contained in restoration plan, nor does a 5-year restoration plan conflict with the Code, and the Plan does specify the manner in which the trees should be trimmed, through a schedule for the first two years that will provide for annual trimmings during the timeframe of November to January, then in year four will provide for trimmings to be completed during the timeframe of November to January every other year in perpetuity, as ongoing maintenance in order to restore the scenic view. Said tree trimming will be performed in accordance with the “View Restoration Plan,” prepared by Mark Wisniewski, and dated August 2, 2022, attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution.

This, with the Special Condition described below and enforcement of the Plan, ensures consistency with the Code.

Section 5: Restorative Work and Allocation of Costs
In performing restorative work described in Section 4, the procedures set forth in DMMC Section 23.51.080 shall be followed. Allocation of costs for the restorative work, in accordance with DMMC section 23.51.080, will consist of a 50/50 cost sharing between the Applicant/Property Owners for TVS21-002 (Deftos) and TVS21-003 (Michaels).

Section 6: Enforcement
This Resolution shall be enforceable pursuant to DMMC Section 23.51.110.

Section 7: Planning Commission Subcommittee:

Acting in accord with the Planning Commission Policy Manual, the two Commission members duly performed an important community benefit by working with the parties to develop an effective restoration plan that minimized impacts to the trees, while mitigating impacts to scenic views.
12 November 14, 2022 Item 11
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 7 of 9 ends

AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that approval of TVS21-002 shall be subject to the following conditions:

General Conditions:

G-7 [Code Compliance]
Approval of this application shall not waive the requirement for compliance with the provisions of the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) or other applicable City regulations unless specifically waived in this permit authorization.

Special Conditions:

S-1 [City Arborist Consultation]
Prior to the conclusion of this year’s Torrey Pine (Pinus torreyana) trimming season (November 2022-January 2023), the Applicant shall fund the services of the City’s contract certified arborist to conduct a site visit and determine the extent, if any, trimming could be completed on Tree #1 prior to next trimming season (November 2023-January 2024) while maintaining the health of the tree. Said determination shall include the extent and date of the trimming and shall be implemented by the Applicant and incorporated into the approved “View Restoration Plan.”
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, State of California, at a Regular Meeting held on the 14th day of November 2022. ___________________________
Dwight Worden, Mayor
City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:
13 November 14, 2022 Item 11
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 8 of 9 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CITY OF DEL MAR
I, SARAH KRIETOR, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2022-XX, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 14th day of November 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
14 November 14, 2022 Item 11
Resolution 2022-XX

Page 9 of 9 ends

Exhibit A
15 November 14, 2022 Item 11
August 2, 2022
Harvey & Sheryl White
473 Ocean View Avenue
Del Mar, CA 92014
RE: White Residential Property
473 Ocean View Avenue, Del Mar, CA
View Restoration Plan
Wisniewski & Associates File No. 22-1005
Dear Mr. & Ms. White
The following is my proposed View Restoration Plan with supporting background information on the methodology used that you requested. This report is also intended to respond to the scenic view restoration recommendations of the Del Mar Planning Commission per their review of applications TVS-21-002 and TVS-21-003.

BACKGROUND - INITIAL SITE VISIT
I first visited the site to evaluate four Pinus torreyana - Torrey Pine trees, on 05/05/1998 in the company of Adam Birnbaum. The purpose of the visit was to evaluate the size and condition of the trees and the potential impacts to the trees from the White’s proposed residential construction project.

I submitted a report of my observations, concerns and recommendations for protection of the Torrey Pine trees during construction.

The following month after reviewing the construction drawings that were submitted for this project, I prepared an additional report of my observations, conclusions and additional recommendations.

BACKGROUND - SECOND SITE VIST
On 07/29/22 I visited the site and met with Ms. Sheryl White to evaluate the current condition of the trees. I was also to observe the trees from the backyards of the two uphill neighbors Michael and Angela Deftos and Hal and Carly Michaels. The purpose of the visits was to observe the condition of the trees and their obstruction of scenic views. I was asked to prepare this report of my recommendations for restoration of those views.

WISNIEWSKI & ASSOCIATES

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT - INDEPENDENT CONSULTING ARBORIST
2036 Countrywood Way - Encinitas, California 92024-5401 (760) 840-7501
Licensed Landscape Architect No. 3281
International Society of Arboriculture - Certified Arborist No. WE-0742A - Retired International Society of Arboriculture - Tree Risk Assessment Qualified - Retired 16 November 14, 2022 Item 11
White Residential Property
View Restoration Plan
Wisniewski & Associates 22-1005
August 2, 2022
2 I also reviewed a large number of documents related to the Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight Applications submitted by the Deftos and Michaels. The documents included City staff reports and other related documents. Also included were arborist reports from Robert Walton, Jr. and Ted Safford and also a report from the Planning Commission subcommittee.

When viewing the trees from the Deftos and Michaels backyards I stood just outside of their sliding glass doors as this was as close as I could get to their Primary Living Area (PLA). It is important to note that changes in location, height (standing or sitting), and distance to the trees can change the view.

For example, in Mr. Walton’s Report for Michael Deftos in photo 5 (Tree 1), the photograph appears to have been taken from a location close to the canyon rim making the tree appear taller than the photo of the same tree in this report. This makes the tree in Walton’s photo appear taller than it appears in my photo of the same tree when compared to the horizon line. The deck outside of the Deftos backdoor, where I was standing, is several feet higher and therefore the tree appears shorter when compared to the horizon line.

I noted numerous Torrey Pine trees in the neighborhood, including on both the Deftos and Michaels properties where large Torrey Pines had many of their smaller and lower branches removed so that views could be seen through the larger remaining branches.

PRUNING STANDARDS AND TERMS DEFINED
In an effort to try to reduce ambiguity and provide for commonality in the use of pruning terms I rely on the “American National Standard - Tree, Shrub, and Woody Plant Management - Standard Practices (Pruning). ANSI A300 (Part 1) - 2017 Pruning”.

This publication is periodically updated by a national committee of diverse industry professionals and is published by the Tree Care Industry Association, Inc.

The following selected terms are defined in the above cited publication.

10.1 arboriculture: The art, science, technology, and business of commercial, public, and utility tree care.

10.33 pruning: The selective removal of plant parts to achieve defined objectives.

10.34 pruning amount: Quantity of plant parts removed at one pruning, expressed in terms of a number of branches or other parts removed, and/or percentage of the crown or buds removed on an entire tree or specified branches.

10.38 reduction: Arboricultural term referring to decreasing branch length or plant height and/or spread.

10.39 reduction cut: A pruning cut that removes the larger of two or more branches or stems, or one or more codominant stems(s), to a live lateral branch, typically at least 17 November 14, 2022 Item 11
White Residential Property
View Restoration Plan
Wisniewski & Associates 22-1005
August 2, 2022
3 one-third the diameter of the stem or branch being removed.

10.58 thinning: An arboriculture term used to describe selective pruning to reduce density of branches and foliage.

10.8 clean: Arboricultural term used to describe selective pruning to remove one or more of the following: dead, diseased, infested, rubbing, declining, detached and/or broken branches.

The following is from the 2008 version of the American National Standard for pruning.

It was not included in the 2017 version.

4.58 vista/view prune: Pruning to enhance a specific view without jeopardizing the health of the tree.
“Public Tree Policy Manual for the City of Del Mar”, Received Final Approval on February 2, 2004.

Note: “Lacing” is not defined or used in any American National Standard publication concerning tree pruning. This term is primarily localized to the San Diego and Orange County areas appearing in ads for tree care contractors and has subsequently been picked up by the general public as some sort of very special technique.

Since it is not defined every contractor who uses it has their own definition or explanation of “lacing”. This creates confusion and uncertainty about the intention and the outcome of the work.

VIEW RESTORATION PLAN
The following is noted in Ted Safford’s report dated 09/26/21. The trees were pruned in February 2021.
“We probably reduced the density of the branching of each of the trees by 25%. To thin the branching structure more would be detrimental to the long-term health of the tree.” Mature trees cannot tolerate being regularly pruned to remove 25% of the live canopy.

With this in mind I propose a multi-year approach to restoring the views to the two properties while not overly stressing the trees and potentially leading to their decline.

There are five trees to be addressed based on the numbering system that has been established by Mr. Walton in his report for the Michaels. 18 November 14, 2022 Item 11
White Residential Property
View Restoration Plan
Wisniewski & Associates 22-1005
August 2, 2022
4 Objective
Restore the scenic views to the fullest extent possible without excessive damage to the trees so that they remain viable. The proposed work schedules below describe a series of distinct pruning events over a five-year period which cumulatively will have success in restoring views. Spreading the view restoration pruning work out over the course of five years will minimize damage to the trees’ health.

Each Proposed Schedule of Work is a distinct pruning event and the work performed at one event is not intended to limit the described pruning work of any later event.

Proposed Schedule of Work
Winter 2022 - 2023
Limit the removal of live material from any tree during this even to a maximum of 20%.

The intention is not to create straight vertical or horizontal pruning lines, but to stagger the reduction pruning cuts 1’-2’ back past where the line of sight or clearance limit is required. This will help maintain a more natural appearance and avoid the necessity of having to provide any additional pruning in most of those locations in the near future.

It is critical that qualified tree care personnel are present on the site during the work who are skilled at properly estimating the percent of live foliage being removed from each tree while the work progresses. This will also allow an evaluation of the success of the view restoration pruning.

Proceed with the pruning in the following order of work.

1. Clean the canopies of all five trees.

2. Use proper reduction pruning cuts to reduce the canopy width of all five trees to achieve 10’ of separation between the canopies. This procedure is recommended to restore the views between the trees while also reducing the chance of fire spread in case of a wildfire. Evaluate the percentage of live material removed from each tree before proceeding to Step 3. If it is less than 20% proceed to the following Steps. If the amount of live material is 20% or greater do no further work on the tree until the next pruning cycle.

3. For Tree 1 provide an enhanced view through the center of the tree where the foliage and branches are the least dense. Use reduction and thinning cuts to create a view that is +/-5’ wide and is open through the top of the canopy. See Photo No. 1.

Then use reduction cuts to reduce the width of the west side of the canopy+/- 5’. Stop removing or reducing branches at the point when the downhill trees and vegetation block the view.
19 November 14, 2022 Item 11
White Residential Property
View Restoration Plan
Wisniewski & Associates 22-1005
August 2, 2022
5 Next use reduction cuts to remove the tallest branches +/- 5’ deep into the canopy.

This will also have the effect of thinning the canopy. Stop work whenever a total of 20% of the live foliage has been removed from all pruning operations. Do no further work on the tree until the next pruning cycle.

4. For Tree 2 use reduction cuts to reduce the height of the canopy +/- 6’. Use thinning cuts to reduce the density of the canopy. Stop work whenever a total of 20% of the live foliage has been removed from all pruning operations. Do no further work on the tree until the next pruning cycle.

5. For Tree 3 a different approach is recommended since due to previous pruning, which appears to have been topping, the majority of the upper canopy is composed of numerous upright growing branches that are similar in size. Use thinning cuts to remove as many branches as possible while attempting to mimic the structure and shape of the two Torrey Pines growing on the Michaels property. Stop work whenever a total of 20% of the live foliage has been removed from all pruning operations. Do no further work on the tree until the next pruning cycle.

In time, with continued regular pruning, this tree will also become a skyline tree with framed views through the canopy.

6. Trees 4 and 5 have not been properly pruned, but have numerous mid branch cuts that will dieback. Using proper reduction pruning cuts to remove the bad cuts and reduce the height of the trees to the point where they do not obstruct any of the view when viewed from the sliding glass door on the Michaels deck. Stop work whenever a total of 20% of the live foliage has been removed from all pruning operations for each tree.

Do no further work on the tree until the next pruning cycle.

7. The site shall be left in a clean condition and the debris shall be properly disposed of.

Winter 2023-2024
Limit the removal of live material from any tree during this event to a maximum of 20%.

Prior to scheduling the work, review the current conditions of the trees to determine if any modifications need to be made to the work plan.

Proceed with the pruning in the following order of work.

1. Clean the canopies of all five trees.

2. For Trees 1, 2, and 3 use reduction and thinning cuts to provide 10’ clearance from and above any chimney or flue pipe to reduce wildfire risk. See attached “San Diego Regional Urban Forest Clearance Standards for Trees”.
20 November 14, 2022 Item 11
White Residential Property
View Restoration Plan
Wisniewski & Associates 22-1005
August 2, 2022
6 3. For Tree 1 maintain the enhanced view through the center of the tree where the foliage and branches are the least dense use reduction and thinning cuts to expand the view so that is +/-6’ wide and is open through the top of the canopy. See Photo No. 1.

Next use reduction cuts to remove the tallest branches +/- 5’ deep into the canopy.

This will also have the effect of thinning the canopy. Stop removing branches in any area of the canopy when the downhill trees and vegetation continue to block the view.

Stop work whenever a total of 20% of the live foliage has been removed from all pruning operations. Do no further work on the tree until the next pruning cycle.

4. For Tree 2 use reduction and thinning cuts to reduce the height of the canopy +/- 6’.

Use thinning cuts to reduce the density of the canopy. Stop work whenever a total of 15% of the live foliage has been removed from all pruning operations. Do no further work on the tree until the next pruning cycle.

5. For Tree 3. use thinning cuts to remove the upright branches while attempting to mimic the structure and shape of the two Torrey Pines growing on the Michaels property.

Also use thinning cuts to reduce the density of the upper canopy. Stop work whenever a total of 15% of the live foliage has been removed from all pruning operations. Do no further work on the tree until the next pruning cycle.

In time, with continued regular pruning, this tree will become a skyline tree with framed views through the canopy.

6. For Trees 4 and 5 using proper reduction pruning cuts to maintain the height of the trees to the point where they do not obstruct any of the view when viewed from the sliding glass door on the Michaels deck. Stop work whenever a total of 15% of the live foliage has been removed from all pruning operations. Do no further work on the tree until the next pruning cycle.

7. The site shall be left in a clean condition and the debris shall be properly disposed of.

Winter 2025-2026
Limit the removal of live material from any tree during this event to a maximum of 15%.

Prior to scheduling the work, review the current conditions of the trees to determine if any modifications need to be made to the work plan.

Proceed with the pruning in the following order of work.

1. Clean the canopies of all five trees.
21 November 14, 2022 Item 11
White Residential Property
View Restoration Plan
Wisniewski & Associates 22-1005
August 2, 2022
7 2. For Trees 1, 2, and 3 use reduction and thinning cuts to provide 3’ clearance from the sides of the building and 5’ above the roof to reduce wildfire risk. See attached “San Diego Regional Urban Forest Clearance Standards for Trees”.

3. For Tree 1 maintain the enhanced view through the center of the tree where the foliage and branches are the least dense and is open through the top of the canopy. See Photo No. 1.

Next use reduction cuts to remove the tallest branches +/- 5’ deep into the canopy that may have grown since the last pruning cycle. Also use reduction and thinning cuts to remove any branches that may have grown up in th front of the canopy. Reduce the candles in length by 75% for any branches that may block the restored views.

Stop removing branches or pinching candles in any area of the canopy when the downhill trees and vegetation continue to block the view.

Stop work whenever a total of 15% of the live foliage has been removed from all pruning operations. Do no further work on the tree until the next pruning cycle.

4. For Tree 2 use reduction and thinning cuts to maintain the height of the canopy. Use thinning cuts to reduce the density of the canopy. Stop work whenever a total of 15% of the live foliage has been removed from all pruning operations. Do no further work on the tree until the next pruning cycle.

5. For Tree 3 use reduction and thinning cuts to continue to mimic the structure and shape of the two Torrey Pines growing on the Michaels property. Also use thinning cuts to reduce the density of the upper canopy. Stop work whenever a total of 15% of the live foliage has been removed from all pruning operations. Do no further work on the tree until the next pruning cycle.

The objective remains that with continued regular pruning this tree will become a skyline tree with framed views through the canopy.

7. The site shall be left in a clean condition and the debris shall be properly disposed of.

Note: Emergency pruning, such as for branch failures, can be performed at any time.
22 November 14, 2022 Item 11
White Residential Property
View Restoration Plan
Wisniewski & Associates 22-1005
August 2, 2022
8 LIMITING CONDITIONS

1. Unless expressed otherwise: a) the information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of the evaluation, and b) the evaluation is limited to the visual observation of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring.

2. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies with these trees or this property may not arise in the future.

3. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies with these trees or this property may not arise in the future.

Please contact me if you have any questions or require any additional information.

23 November 14, 2022 Item 11
White Residential Property
View Restoration Plan
Wisniewski & Associates 22-1005
August 2, 2022
9 CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
A consulting arborist is an individual who utilizes specialized education, knowledge, training and experience to examine and evaluate trees. By utilizing a diagnostic model he makes recommendations for treatments and dosage to achieve desired objectives.

Recommendations to reduce risk and improve safety are of the highest priority. At times trees may be recommended for removal when they cannot reasonably be made safe, or potential targets such as people or property, cannot be relocated or eliminated. The client may choose to accept or disregard the consulting arborist's recommendation or to obtain additional advice.

The consulting arborist cannot identify every condition that may cause a structural failure of a tree or it's parts. Trees are dynamic organisms that interact with their environment in complex ways that are not fully understood. Many conditions located within trees, or below ground, cannot be fully evaluated. A consulting arborist cannot guarantee that a tree will be safe or healthy under all environmental conditions or for a specified period of time. Recommended treatments cannot be guaranteed.

The treatment, pruning or removal of trees, often involves factors beyond the scope of the consulting arborist's services. These factors can include, but are not limited to, concerns such as the following: property ownership, property boundary lines, disputes between neighbors and landlord tenant arrangements. A consulting arborist cannot take such factors into consideration without being provided complete and accurate information.

The property owner accepts full responsibility for authorizing the recommended treatments or remedial measures. The ability to manage trees is limited as they are living dynamic organisms constantly subjected to environmental stresses. All risks from trees cannot be eliminated. To live with and to work with trees is to accept a degree of risk. 24 November 14, 2022 Item 11
White Residential Property
View Restoration Plan
Wisniewski & Associates 22-1005
August 2, 2022
10 PHOTOGRAPHS
25 November 14, 2022 Item 11
White Residential Property
View Restoration Plan
Wisniewski & Associates 22-1005
August 2, 2022
11 Photo No. 1 - Tree 1 viewed from the Deftos deck. The yellow oval indicates area to be pruned to provide distant view. Blue jagged line is the desired +/-5' canopy reduction pruning line. 26 November 14, 2022 Item 11
White Residential Property
View Restoration Plan
Wisniewski & Associates 22-1005
August 2, 2022
12 Photo No. 2 – View from Michaels’ Trees Nos. 1 - 5.
5 4
3 2
1 27 November 14, 2022 Item 11
White Residential Property
View Restoration Plan
Wisniewski & Associates 22-1005
August 2, 2022
13 Photo No. 3 - Tree 3 appears to have been topped years ago with resulting numerous upright branches of similar size with foliage concentrated at the top of the canopy. The intention is to prune the tree so that over time it will have the appearance of the two trees in Photo No. 4. 28 November 14, 2022 Item 11
White Residential Property
View Restoration Plan
Wisniewski & Associates 22-1005
August 2, 2022
14 Photo No. 4 - Two skyline Torrey Pines on the Michaels' property which frame distant views. 29 November 14, 2022 Item 11
White Residential Property
View Restoration Plan
Wisniewski & Associates 22-1005
August 2, 2022
15 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL URBAN FORESTS COUNCIL

CLEARANCE STANDARDS FOR TREES

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
2010

1. CLEARANCE STANDARDS

1.1. Purpose
It is the intention that all work be performed to improve public safety, reduce the spread of fire, provide required clearances, reduce the risk of tree failure, maintain or improve tree vigor and structure, or fulfill other specific requirements of the tree owner.

1.2 Application
The following standards shall apply to the pruning of all trees in San Diego County maintained as part of a landscaped setting. These standards are not intended to supersede any more stringent clearance requirements of any fire department or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction.

1.3 Additional Standards
Additional standards and practices that apply to the pruning of trees shall be the most recent edition of the following:

ANSI A-300 (Part 1), American National Standard for Tree Care Operations – Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Maintenance – Standard Practices (Pruning)
ANSI Z133.1, American National Standard for Arboricultural Operations – Safety Requirements
“Best Management Practices – Tree Pruning” published by the International Society of Arboriculture.

1.4 Clearance Standards
The following minimum clearances for tree canopies are to be achieved at the time of pruning.

1. streets, roads, fire lanes and the traveled way in parking lots: 14’ above the curb or edge of the traveled way.

2. driveways: 14’ overhead clearance and 16’ horizontal clearance (8’ from either side of the centerline of the driveway). Local agency requirements 30 November 14, 2022 Item 11
White Residential Property
View Restoration Plan
Wisniewski & Associates 22-1005
August 2, 2022
16 may specify a greater horizontal clearance depending on the number of properties accessed by the driveway.

3. buildings and structures: 3’ from the sides and 5’ over the roof.

4. chimneys: 10’ from the side or above the outlets from chimneys or flue pipes.

1.4.5 safety signs, signals and informational road signs: Line of sight, as detailed in local codes or ordinances, shall not be obstructed by tree growth from a clear view by motor vehicle operators. This includes street name signs and property addresses.

1.4.6 vehicle traffic at intersections and turning lanes: Line of sight, as detailed in local codes or ordinances, shall not be obstructed by tree growth from a clear view by motor vehicle operators.

1.4.7 street lights and light poles: 5’ from the sides, above and below the light fixture and the pole supporting the fixture.

1.4.8 sidewalks, walkways and parking spaces in parking lots: 8’ above the paved surface.

2. PRUNING

2.1. Pruning Objectives
The objectives to be achieved include, but are not limited to clearance, risk reduction and structural improvement or correction.

2.2. Pruning Methods (types)
One or more of the following methods (types) shall be utilized to achieve the objectives: clean, raise, reduce or thin. Do not top any tree to achieve the clearance standards.

2.3. Work Included
Tree pruning shall include clearance pruning along with any other pruning specified or required to complete the work.

2.4. Inspection
“A visual hazard assessment, including a root collar inspection, shall be performed prior to climbing, entering, or performing any work in a tree.” (ANSI Z133.1-2006)
31 November 14, 2022 Item 11
White Residential Property
View Restoration Plan
Wisniewski & Associates 22-1005
August 2, 2022
17 Report to the tree manager or tree owner, in writing, any unsafe or potentially hazardous condition. Also report if it was not possible to inspect the root collar due to obstructing plant material or soil.
32 November 14, 2022 Item 11
White Residential Property
View Restoration Plan
Wisniewski & Associates 22-1005
August 2, 2022
18 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL URBAN FORESTS COUNCIL

CLEARANCE STANDARDS FOR TREES

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
2010
The following people contributed to the development and review of the Clearance Standard for Trees – San Diego County, California 2010:

Danielle Campbell, Forestry Assistant, Resource Conservation District of Greater San Diego County
Tim Clancy, Consulting Arborist
Anne Fege, Co-coordinator San Diego Children and Nature Collaborative Delia B. Juncal, Public Works Inspector – Landscape, City of Oceanside Vince Mikulanis, Project Manager, Davey Resource Group
Mike Palat, Area Manager, West Coast Arborists, Inc., Chair of the San Diego Regional Urban Forests Council
Brooke Peterson, ACIP, Senior Associate, Design, Community & Environment Drew Potocki, Urban Forester, City of San Diego
Annette Saul, Parks and Landscape Supervisor, City of Santee Lynnette Short, Urban Forester – Southern Region, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, CAL FIRE
Mark Wisniewski, Landscape Architect & Consulting Arborist, Wisniewski & Associates
Adopted by the Executive Committee of the San Diego Regional Urban Forests Council on 12/01/10.
33 November 14, 2022 Item 11
Exhibit D - Tree Location Map
225 Torrey
Pines Terrace
Appellants
473
Ocean View Avenue
Tree Owners
#1
#2 #3
#4 #5 ATTACHMENT B
34 November 14, 2022 Item 11

ATTACHMENT C
To view the December 7, 2021 Planning Commission Staff Report for TVS21-002, please use the link below.
https://www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_12072021-2876 35 November 14, 2022 Item 11

ATTACHMENT D
To view the August 9, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report for TVS21-002, please use the link below.
https://www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_08092022-3038 36 November 14, 2022 Item 11
37 November 14, 2022 Item 11
38 November 14, 2022 Item 11
39 November 14, 2022 Item 11
40 November 14, 2022 Item 11
41 November 14, 2022 Item 11
42 November 14, 2022 Item 11
43 November 14, 2022 Item 11
44 November 14, 2022 Item 11
45 November 14, 2022 Item 11
46 November 14, 2022 Item 11
47 November 14, 2022 Item 11
48 November 14, 2022 Item 11
49 November 14, 2022 Item 11
50 November 14, 2022 Item 11
51 November 14, 2022 Item 11
52 November 14, 2022 Item 11
53 November 14, 2022 Item 11
54 November 14, 2022 Item 11
55 November 14, 2022 Item 11
56 November 14, 2022 Item 11
57 November 14, 2022 Item 11
58 November 14, 2022 Item 11
59 November 14, 2022 Item 11
60 November 14, 2022 Item 11
61 November 14, 2022 Item 11

ATTACHMENT F
Photo of Tree #1 just prior to limb failure:
62 November 14, 2022 Item 11
Tree #1 post limb failure:
63 November 14, 2022 Item 11
Del Mar City Clerk,
We appeal the final determination voted on 8/9/2022 by the Planning Commission for TVS21-002.

Appellant's full name, address, and phone number:
- Appellant name: Michael and Angela Deftos
- Appellant address: 225 Torrey Pines Terrace, Del Mar, CA, 92014 - Appellant phone number: 415-202-3554
Subordinate entity: Planning Commission
Date of determination: 8/9/2022
Determination for which review is sought: TVS21-002.

Appellant's interest in the appealed determination: Applicant of TVS21-002 Grounds for the appeal:

1. New information is available that was not available at the time of the determination.

Supporting documentation:

Early on the morning of August 12th, shortly after the determination of our case on August 9th, a large limb on one of the subject trees of our case (tree #1) fell under its own weight. This was likely a result of “sudden limb failure.” Prior improper maintenance of the tree that resulted in “lion tail” limbs with all the weight at the end of long branches likely contributed to susceptibility to this. This resulted in the loss of approximately 40% of the tree's canopy (Figures 1a and 1b). 64 November 14, 2022 Item 11
Figure 1a: Limb failure (photo 8/12/2022)
Figure 1b: Limb failure (photo 8/12/2022)
65 November 14, 2022 Item 11
Due to the overlap of the canopies of the three subject trees of our application in our visual field, this did not substantially restore our view (Figure 2).

Figure 2: No substantial view restoration after limb failure of tree #1 The limb failure fundamentally changed the structure of the tree. For example, the tree now has an unbalanced canopy. This constitutes “new information” that was not available at the time of the determination. This new information is germane to the final determination for Conditions of Restorative Action for our application. It affects two of the eleven Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action:

B. The variety of Subject Tree, its projected rate of growth and maintenance requirements.

C. The aesthetic quality of the subject tree
66 November 14, 2022 Item 11
In addition, the final determination for Conditions of Restorative Action is for a tree with a fundamentally different structure than the current tree. There has been no consideration of whether the reduction trimming specified in the final determination can be executed on the tree in its current state. There has been no discussion of whether other view restoration plans are more appropriate for the tree in its current state. The limb failure also drew our attention to what appears to be possible evidence of pine pitch canker (Figure 3), which was not previously disclosed. For these reasons, a new determination on Conditions of Restorative Action is warranted.

Figure 3: Possible evidence of disease (pine pitch canker) 67 November 14, 2022 Item 11

2. The decision to approve the determination for TVS21-002 is in conflict with the Municipal Code.

Supporting documentation:

1. The final determination is contrary to the TSVS Ordinance/DMMC since it will not substantially restore our view
The Conditions of Restorative Action for our TSVS application will not substantially restore our view. We pointed out in the August 9th hearing that the proposed plan would restore 11% of our historic view. This was clearly articulated by Commissioner McGreal at our August 9th hearing: “Mr. Wisniewski’s testimony was basically, and I asked him specifically on this, was that the plan he has established does not come close to restoring the views of the Deftos and Michael 10 years ago...If we go with the Wisniewski plan we’re not even close to restoring the view that existed for both of these families 10 years ago, and that’s what we're asked to do…” The Ordinance requires that unreasonably obstructed views be substantially restored. The final determination for Conditions of Restorative Action for our TSVS application is in conflict with TSVS Ordinance/DMMC since all evidence indicates it will not substantially restore our view.

2. The final determination is in conflict with the TSVS Ordinance/DMMC since it involves a 5-year view restoration plan.

The final determination of Conditions of Restorative Action for our TSVS application takes 5-years to complete. This is in conflict with the Enforcement Clause of the TSVS Ordinance [DMMC 23.51.110]:

The Subject Tree owner shall comply with any work prescribed by the Planning Commission or Council no later than 90 days after final action on the Application, unless, it is determined that it is less harmful to the Subject Tree for the work to occur at a specific time of the year, in which case, the work shall be 68 November 14, 2022 Item 11
performed no later than 90 days from a date set by the Planning Commission or Council.

The enforcement clause clearly stipulates that the Conditions of Restorative Action must be completed within 90 days or a specific time of the year when it is less harmful to the Subject Tree. It does not allow a five-year plan. The final determination for Conditions of Restorative Action for our TSVS application is therefore in conflict with TSVS Ordinance/DMMC.

3. The final determination is in conflict with the TSVS Ordinance/DMMC since it requires us to pay for tree trimming for fire hazard mitigation in addition to tree trimming for putative view restoration.

The TSVS Ordinance requires applications to pay for the Restorative Work [23.51.080]. It does not allow requiring an applicant to pay for tree work that is specifically for fire hazard reduction. Several of the actions in the view restoration plan in the final determination are specifically for fire hazard reduction and we are asked to pay for these. In addition, we note that trimming for fire hazard reduction is given priority over trimming for view restoration. The final determination for Conditions of Restorative Action for our TSVS application is therefore in conflict with the TSVS Ordinance/DMMC.

4. The final determination is in conflict with the TSVS Ordinance/DMMC since it was informed by applying criteria for determining appropriate restorative action in a manner contrary to the explicit instructions of the TSVS Ordinance.

The Ordinance explicitly instructs the decision-maker to apply 11 Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action in an unweighted fashion [DMMC

23.51.060]. One of these unweighted factors is the status of the tree as a protected tree.

In contradiction to this, the Subcommittee Recommendation, which “served as a guide” for the final determination for Conditions of Restorative Action, claims the Planning Commissioners have two responsibilities:
1) “To interpret and implement the TSVS Ordinance.”
69 November 14, 2022 Item 11
2) To “make every effort actually to protect such trees as the City of Del Mar has designated as being protected, among others but especially, Torrey Pine trees.” This was echoed in comments made by Commissioner Ferrell in deliberation on August 9th “We have a larger responsibility. We have a responsibility to protect trees that are actually protected.”
To confer more weight to the status of the subject trees as Torrey pine trees than is explicitly stipulated in the Ordinance (one of eleven unweighted criteria) and “make every effort” to preserve contradicts the instruction of the Ordinance that “the Planning Commission shall make a decision on the Application based on the criteria listed in Section 23.51.050 of this Chapter” [DMMC 23.51.040 G]. The final determination for Conditions of Restorative Action for our TSVS application is therefore in conflict with the TSVS Ordinance/DMMC.

5. The final determination is in conflict with the TSVS Ordinance/DMMC since it was informed by applying criteria for determining appropriate restorative action other than those listed by the Ordinance
During the August 9th hearing, Commissioner Ferrell cited two reasons for his opposition to ordering tree removal to restore our view:
i. He was concerned that other property owners would file TSVS applications and ask for the removal of Torrey pine trees to restore their primary scenic views: “The tree is protected. We need to protect it. If we don’t, I foresee a slippery slope of people using this Ordinance to enhance their view for whatever purpose” ii. He was concerned that other property owners would file TSVS applications for their own financial interest: “we also have a responsibility, in my view….given the skyrocketing property values in Del Mar there are people…who might say wow this is my chance of a lifetime… I’m going to cash out..and they might all to easily try to use this Ordinance to affect that end..we have to think about the precedent we set.” Neither of these considerations is a criterion in the Ordinance for determining appropriate restorative action [DMMC 23.51.060]. This contradicts the instruction of the Ordinance that “the Planning Commission shall make a decision on the Application based on the criteria listed in Section 23.51.050 of this Chapter” [DMMC 23.51.040 G]. The 70 November 14, 2022 Item 11
final determination for Conditions of Restorative Action for our TSVS application is therefore in conflict with the TSVS Ordinance/DMMC.

6. The final determination is in conflict with the TSVS Ordinance/DMMC since it does not identify the specific manner in which the Subject Tree is to be trimmed, pruned, removed
There are contingencies in the final determination for Conditions of Restorative Action. These include how much of the allowed trimming for each trimming cycle is used for fire hazard mitigation vs view restoration. The final determination for Conditions of Restorative Action also notes for each successive year of trimming: “Prior to scheduling the work, review the current conditions of the trees to determine if any modifications need to be made to the work plan.”
Because of the uncertainty of the plan introduced by these contingencies, the final determination for Conditions of Restorative Action does not identify the specific manner in which the Subject Tree is to be trimmed, pruned, removed. This contradicts the instruction of the Ordinance that the Conditions of Restorative Action must identify the specific manner in which the Subject Tree is to be trimmed, pruned, removed. The final determination for Conditions of Restorative Action for our TSVS application is therefore in conflict with the TSVS Ordinance/DMMC.

3. The decision to approve the determination for TVS21-002 is in conflict with City Policy
Supporting documentation:

The final determination is in conflict with the Planning Commission Policy Manual since it was arrived at by disregarding City policy for the Planning Commission to follow normal parliamentarian procedures.
71 November 14, 2022 Item 11
The instruction from the full Planning Commission on December 7th, 2021 was to form a two-member subcommittee to bring back a draft resolution for Conditions of Restorative Action for consideration by the entire Planning Commission. This was scheduled to occur on July 12, 2022. The Subcommittee Recommendation/Draft Resolution in regard to tree #1 was for a contingency plan (plan A: 40% reduction in canopy if the Whites could find an arborist willing to commit to performing this severe trimming; if not, plan B: tree removal). In a red dot letter we submitted on July 7th we pointed out that this recommendation was in conflict with the language of the TSVS Ordinance and that the 40% recommended reduction would be contrary to pruning standards limiting reduction to 25% in one trimming cycle. On July 11th, the White’s newly acquired representative, Mr. Adam Birnbaum, asked for a last-minute continuance of the hearing stating that “the Whites are having difficulty understanding all that is involved with a TSVS application and have asked me to help them understand and navigate the process” and that “Unfortunately, I was asked only yesterday to provide that assistance…I will need more than 24 hours to digest all of the information and help the Whites prepare correspondence and testimony.” There was an explicit threat of appeal if this continuance was not granted. In oral testimony on July 12th, Mr. Birnbaum said the granting of the continuance “would also give us the opportunity to start on steps that were required in the draft resolution to look into the cost estimates for doing the restorative work.” We believe the continuance was granted under a very liberal interpretation of the Planning Commission Planning Manual.

When our hearing was continued on August 9th, 2022, Mr. Birnbaum returned with a proposal from Mr. Wisniewski for tree #1 that attempted to conform to the 40% trimming requirement for plan A in the Subcommittee Recommendation/Draft Resolution. But his plan was significantly different since the 40% reduction was now proposed to occur over 2 years (20% per year x 2 years). This is significantly different from the Subcommittee Recommendation/Draft Resolution since any resulting view restoration would be delayed one year and there would be interval regrowth between the two trimming cycles. It was acknowledged by both Commissioner Farrell1 and 1 Commissioner Farrell: “We have learned that our proposal of 40% reduction…we’ve been informed..that there is a limitation of a maximum of 25% reduction at any one time. So I would suggest that the subcommittee recommendation be taken off the table tonight.” 72 November 14, 2022 Item 11
Commissioner Bakker2
that they made a mistake in recommending the 40% reduction in a single year and that Mr. Wisniewski’s plan differed from the Subcommittee Recommendation.

At the hearing on August 9th, 2022, there was a brief discussion of withdrawing or amending the Subcommittee Recommendation/Draft Resolution, but neither of these actually occurred. Moreover, there was no vote on the actual Subcommittee Recommendation/Draft Resolution that was submitted to the full Planning Commission for the July 12th meeting for which the continuance was granted. Instead, the Subcommittee Recommendation/Draft Resolution informally morphed into the Wisniewski recommendation despite the substantial differences between them. This was an end-run around normal process: Instead of considering the Subcommittee Recommendation/Draft Resolution, which was never formally amended, the Wisniewski recommendation from the Tree Owners arborist was considered. This was noted by Commissioner McGreal: “The Planning Commission established the subcommittee to create a view restoration plan. That plan was to be presented in our last meeting and it wasn’t discussed. That meeting was continued tonight. So, the Planning Commission as a whole has never commented or discussed the Subcommittee’s view restoration plan.” We note that the Planning Commission Policy Manual states that “Except when otherwise provided for in State law, the DMMC or this Manual, Robert’s Rules of Order shall serve as a guide for the Planning Commission’s conduct of meetings.” The procedure for arriving at the final determination for Conditions of Restorative Action for our TSVS application is in conflict with City policy for the Planning Commission to follow normal parliamentarian procedures (Robert’s Rules of Order).

For all of the above reasons, we appeal the final determination for TVS21-002 and request a de novo hearing before the City Council.

Respectfully,
Michael and Angela Deftos
2 Commissioner Bakker: “The 40% I knew would be difficult…I did not find out about that it was recommended to stay at 25%”.
73 November 14, 2022 Item 11
_____________________________________________________________________ adamb953mail.com (858) 837-2363
To the Mayor and Members of the Del Mar City Council
On behalf of homeowners Sheryl and Harvey White
Re: Response to Appeal of Planning Commission’s Decision on TVS21-002 August 29, 2022
We have reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision on the referenced matter and respectfully request that the Council uphold the Commission’s action and not set the matter for a de novo hearing.

Before rendering its decision, the Planning Commission performed a thorough review of the matter and carefully considered and deliberated on all of relevant information. As relates to the standards of review for appeals contained in DMMC Chapter 1,12.020, the Planning Commission’s proceedings and decision did not involve any factual errors or inaccuracies and the decision does not conflict with any City policy or code.

As the Council is aware, after the Planning Commission made a determination that some of the tree limbs on the White property blocked views from the Deftos residence. The Commission moved onto the second step of the TVS process, determining the proper type and extent of Restorative Action. After initial discussion, the Commission appointed a subcommittee to prepare a detailed analysis and recommendation on the appropriate means by which to prune the trees to provide a reasonable measure of view restoration. As part of that analysis, and recommendation, the subcommittee appropriately weighed the public policies expressed in the Trees, Scenic Views, Sunlight Ordinance to provide reasonable view restoration, while at the same time considering the near- and long-term health of protected Torrey Pine trees. This was reflected in the subcommittee’s report, where, on page#3, it states:

We make these recommendations bearing in mind that our responsibility is two-fold: 1) to interpret and implement the applicable City of Del Mar ordinance (TSVS) so that preexisting views we deem to have been obstructed are, to a significant though not necessarily total extent, restored; and 2) in the process, make every effort actually to protect such trees as the City of Del Mar has designated as being protected, among others but especially, Torrey Pine trees.

The subcommittee’s recommendations were well researched, especially with respect to the unique attributes and growth patterns of Torrey Pines. They were very detailed, with specific recommendations for trimming, expressed as percentages of canopy reduction for each of the Torrey Pines.

In preparing their recommendation to the full Commission, the subcommittee carefully considered the requirements of the TSVS Ordinance. This was true especially for Tree #1, where the Subcommittee report states:
74 November 14, 2022 Item 11
Members of the Del Mar City Council
August 29, 2022
Response to Appeal of Planning Commission action on TVS21-002 Page # 2
Tree #1 we recommend be laced and prudently drop-crotch trimmed such that the canopy be reduced approximately 40%. Since this will result in a dramatic trimming, we also recommend that the tree owner consult with a qualified and licensed arborist in the implementation of the trimming plan for Tree #1 such that it remains healthy and aesthetically pleasing. The tree owner is required to submit such a plan to the Planning Commission within 2 months from, July 12, 2022, or the date in which the resolution is adopted, for our review.

It was recognized in the Subcommittee’s report and in comments by Commissioners at the December 2021 and August 2022 meetings, that the Restorative Action would not occur in one fell swoop, but would instead be best accomplished through a series of pruning events.

To respond to and carry out the subcommittee’s recommendations, the Whites retained arborist Mark Wisniewski to prepare a View Restoration Plan. Mr. Wisniewski is a respected arborist and landscape architect with many years of experience with Del Mar and its Torrey Pine trees.

Mr. Wisniewski is on the City’s list of consulting arborists, and for a number of years, was himself the City’s own On-Call Consulting Arborist. It was especially helpful that he was the City’s Consulting Arborist at the time the White residence went through the DRB review process and was constructed.

After careful study and analysis, including observing (with consent), the views from the Deftos deck in front of their living room, Mr. Wisniewski prepared a comprehensive plan for view restoration based largely on the recommendations in the Subcommittee’s report. As he explains in the report, his recommendations differ from those in the report submitted by Mr. Walton on behalf of the appellants who, with respect to Tree #1, recommended its complete removal.

Mr. Wisniewski’s report includes a series of recommendations both for reduction pruning and vista/view pruning to provide significant restoration of the Deftos’ views1. The challenge in meeting this objective was to include enough pruning work to provide restoration but not at the expense of the long-term health of the tree. It was a delicate balance with a fine tipping point.

But in the interest of trying to achieve a satisfactory resolution, the Wisniewski report moved as far toward that tipping point as possible, as quickly as possible. His View Restoration Plan calls for the cutting limbs and foliage of five trees on the White’s property over a phased series of trimming events. In addition to following the subcommittee’s parameters, his report is based on industry standards, including those cited in the TSVS Ordinance and the City’s Public Tree Policy Manual.

After deliberation, the Planning Commission voted to adopt Mr. Wisniewski’s submitted View Restoration Plan as the means for Restoration Acton. It was attached to the Planning Commission’s Resolution of Approval and is included as Attachment A.

Mr. Wisniewski will be in attendance (virtually), during the upcoming Council meeting to answer questions about the View Restoration Plan.
1 A note on the term “pruning.” As a lay person, I had considered pruning to be the fine removal of leaves and dying buds from the flowers and bushes in my garden. Mr. Wisniewski has “educated” me that the term correctly applies to and is used to describe other cutting, including that of larger tree limbs and is the standard term is used in the arbor-cultural industry.
75 November 14, 2022 Item 11
Members of the Del Mar City Council
August 29, 2022
Response to Appeal of Planning Commission action on TVS21-002 Page # 3
The White’s Continued Commitment to Actions for View Restoration Although it was not their preferred outcome, the Whites are not objecting to the Restorative Action adopted by the Planning Commission. Over the course of the last 20 years, the Whites have had the trees trimmed on an average of every two years with such trimming carried out in accordance with the recommendations of arborists and tree service specialists. They have done so both to respond to neighbors’ requests and to maintain the health of the trees that they dearly love.

In some cases, the shared they costs of such trimming with the Deftos family. On other occasions, they bore the entirety of those costs. They continue to be committed to pruning efforts. It should also be noted that the Whites have already committed to bearing the entire burden of any costs for trimming trees to address fire-safety issues. They see no reason for the appellants to bear those costs.

But the Whites are steadfastly opposed to the outcome that the Deftos have consistently sought at the Planning Commission proceedings and in this appeal, the complete cutting down of Torrey Pine, Tree #1.

Response to Claims in the Deftos Appeal
The Deftos appeal argues that because the Planning Commission’s decision on Restorative Action would take multiple years to complete, that it would be in conflict with the TSVS Ordinance.

We disagree. The TSVS Ordinance makes numerous references to on-going efforts for view restoration and maintenance.

The Commission’s decision to require a phased approach was carefully considered. Again, Commissioners determined that the phased approach was an appropriate balance of the City’s public policies regarding: 1) providing view restoration; and 2) doing so in a manner that would not cause irreparable damage to a protected Torrey Pine tree.

Contrary to the statements in the Deftos appeal, the Planning Commission did follow and abide by the regulations contained in the TSVS Ordinance.

TSVS Ordinance, Section 23.51.060, states:

After it has been determined, through the hearing process, that unreasonable obstruction has occurred, then the
following unweighted factors shall be considered in
determining appropriate Restorative Action:

This same Code section lists criteria that are to be considered when the reviewing body makes a determination on the type and extent of Restorative Action. As one of the criteria, Subsection I lists:

Whether the Subject Tree is a "Protected Tree", as defined herein and in Chapter 23.50 (Trees) ..
76 November 14, 2022 Item 11
Members of the Del Mar City Council
August 29, 2022
Response to Appeal of Planning Commission action on TVS21-002 Page # 4
Subsection D lists, as another criterion:

The location of the Subject Tree with respect to overall appearance, design, or use of the Subject Tree owner's
property; …

When considering the above-cited subsections, an important factor was the significant effort (and expense), that when into preserving the Torrey Pine, Tree #1 when the project on the White property was originally designed and approved (and conditioned), by the Design Review Board. A more detailed explanation of those efforts and requirements is included in Attachment C. The architect for the White home submitted a letter for the August 9th Planning Commission meeting further explaining the care that went into the home’s design in order to preserve the tree and explaining how integral that tree was/is in the overall property improvements and home design. A copy of that letter included here as Attachment D.

Contrary to statements in the Deftos appeal, the Planning Commission also acted in accordance with TSVS Ordinance Section 23.51.070, the preamble of which states:

Restorative Action may include additional written conditions (including ongoing maintenance)… [emphasis added],
Subsection B then states:

View and/or Sunlight Restorative Actions must be consistent with all other provisions of this Chapter. In cases where Trimming, Windowing, or other Restorative Action may affect the health of a Tree which is to be preserved, such actions should be carried out in accordance with standards
established by the International Society of Arboriculture for use in the State of California. Severe pruning should be avoided due to the damage such practice causes a Tree's form and health.

The Wisniewski View Restoration Plan carefully follows these standards2, and the Planning Commission’s action in adopting that plan was, likewise, consistent with the Ordinance.

The appeal also argues that the View Restoration Plan presented by Mr. Wisniewski and adopted by the Commission would not be effective in restoring views. Despite the appeal’s inclusion of a misrepresentation of Mr. Wisniewski’s testimony, Mr. Wisniewski explained, in response to Commissioners’ questions, that, in following the percentages of canopy reduction called for in the subcommittee’s recommendation, views would be restored at least to the level that existed ten years before and likely even more.
2 The California standards cited in the Ordinance have since been replaced by what is now termed the American National Standard for Pruning.
77 November 14, 2022 Item 11
Members of the Del Mar City Council
August 29, 2022
Response to Appeal of Planning Commission action on TVS21-002 Page # 5
Recent Branch Failure from “Tree #1.”
Admittedly, there is one piece of new information since the date of the Commission’s action, the failure of a branch from referenced Torrey Pine Tree, #1. However, as explained in greater detail below, that event and associated information does not substantially change the circumstances or standards upon which the Planning Commission made its decision.

The Deftos appeal states that “There has been no consideration of whether the reduction trimming specified in the final determination can be executed on the tree in its current states: The limb failure also drew our attention to what appears to be possible evidence of pine pitch canker.

Again, we disagree.

Following the branch failure, Mr. Wisniewski prepared another report, this one on the condition and viability of the tree. Contrary to the remarks in the Deftos appeal, Mr. Wisniewski determined that the tree is viable and structurally stable. That report is included as Attachment B. In brief, the report states that:

1. The trunk was not damaged and there is no soil movement at the base of the trunk.

2. There was no discolored, brash or decayed wood. All of the wood appeared to have been solid before the failure.

3. There was no dieback of any of the smaller branches.

4. The amount of live foliage on the branch comprised approximately 40% of the live foliage of the entire tree.

5. The branch fell on its own volition apparently due to a well-known phenomenon known as “summer branch drop”.

6. The failure of this one branch will not adversely affect the structural stability or the longevity of this tree.

The report also corrects a number of inaccuracies included in the Deftos appeal, including;

1. The claim that the tree was “lion-tailed” and that such condition contributed to the branch failure;

2. That the tree exhibits evidence of pine pitch canker.

Mr Wisniewski also disputes the statement made in the appeal that:
“Due to the overlap of the canopies of the three subject trees of our application in our visual field, this did not substantially restore our view (Figure 2).” This is not correct for the following reasons.

1. When compared with Photo No. 1 in the View Restoration Plan, there is considerably more view revealed in both in the center of the canopy and on the far-left side of the canopy.

2. This branch failure has now initiated some aspects of the adopted View Restoration Plan.

Mr Wisniewski’s recent report further details the extensive efforts the Whites have made over the years to protect the health of the tree.
78 November 14, 2022 Item 11
Members of the Del Mar City Council
August 29, 2022
Response to Appeal of Planning Commission action on TVS21-002 Page # 6
In our opinion, the failure of one of the branches on what is known as Tree # 1 has had the effect of removal of one of the limbs as called for in the adopted View Restoration Plan and has actually accelerated the pace of the Restorative Action.

Deftos Goal of Cutting Down Torrey Pine #1
The Deftos’ have expressed from the beginning that the only outcome that is acceptable to them is the cutting down of Torrey Pine, Tree #1. After careful analysis and deliberation, the Planning Commission disagreed. The Restorative Action they approved called for trimming of that tree, but not its removal.

In their report to the full Commission, the subcommittee noted the importance to the community of trees in general and Torrey Pines in particular. Their report states:

The actual protection of trees specified as protected enhances the lives of all residents of and visitors to our city, resulting in a highly beneficial and uniquely characteristic “urban forest” aesthetic. For more than 60 years, the protection of designated trees has not only advanced sound ecological practices in the city, but also greatly increased property values in Del Mar. We wish to emphasize that flourishing trees – especially protected species such as Torrey Pine and Monterrey Cypress – not just totally unobstructed ocean views, are an important part of what makes Del Mar so desirable a community in which to live.

The Whites agree with the sentiments offered by the subcommittee. Letters submitted by other members of the community also express concern about any action that would result in the loss of a mature Torrey Pine, either through cutting or extreme trimming that would lead to the tree’s demise. Those concerns include: the species’ rank as an endangered plant by the California Native Plant Society (in their native range); and their role in fighting climate change through the significant amount of carbon that they sequester (see Attachment E).

And I would note that I cannot recall a single instance during my nearly 30-year as a planner for the City, nor in the years since, when the City required, either through a DRB review or a TSVS review, that a protected Torrey Pine tree be completely removed. We think it would be inappropriate for that practice to start here and would set an unfortunate precedent.

It is also important to consider that the outcome that the Deftos are seeking, cutting down of Torrey Pine, Tree #1 runs in direct contradiction to the dictates and conditions issued by the City when it required that the tree be preserved as part of the home’s construction. That change in directive would also set a terrible precedent.
79 November 14, 2022 Item 11
Members of the Del Mar City Council
August 29, 2022
Response to Appeal of Planning Commission action on TVS21-002 Page # 7
For all of the reasons cited herein, we respectfully ask that the City Council uphold the Commission’s decision in adopting the adopting the Wisniewski View Restoration Plan as the means of carrying out Restorative Action for TVS21-002.

Sincerely,
Attachments:

A - Wisniewski View Restoration Plan adopted by the Planning Commission B - Recent Branch Failure Report from Mark Wisniewski
C - Background information on tree-preservation requirements of the Carmel Valley Precise Plan and of DRB 98-14 for the White residence
D - Letter from the architect of the White home
E - Letters of support for retaining of Torrey Pine, Tree #1 80 November 14, 2022 Item 11
August 2, 2022
Harvey & Sheryl White
473 Ocean View Avenue
Del Mar, CA 92014
RE: White Residential Property
473 Ocean View Avenue, Del Mar, CA
View Restoration Plan
Wisniewski & Associates File No. 22-1005
Dear Mr. & Ms. White
The following is my proposed View Restoration Plan with supporting background information on the methodology used that you requested. This report is also intended to respond to the scenic view restoration recommendations of the Del Mar Planning Commission per their review of applications TVS-21-002 and TVS-21-003.

I submitted a report of my observations, concerns and recommendations for protection of the Torrey Pine trees during construction.

The following month after reviewing the construction drawings that were submitted for this project, I prepared an additional report of my observations, conclusions and additional recommendations.

WISNIEWSKI & ASSOCIATES

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT - INDEPENDENT CONSULTING ARBORIST
2036 Countrywood Way - Encinitas, California 92024-5401 (760) 840-7501
Licensed Landscape Architect No. 3281
International Society of Arboriculture - Certified Arborist No. WE-0742A - Retired International Society of Arboriculture - Tree Risk Assessment Qualified - Retired 81 November 14, 2022 Item 11
White Residential Property
View Restoration Plan
Wisniewski & Associates 22-1005
August 2, 2022
2 I also reviewed a large number of documents related to the Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight Applications submitted by the Deftos and Michaels. The documents included City staff reports and other related documents. Also included were arborist reports from Robert Walton, Jr. and Ted Safford and also a report from the Planning Commission subcommittee.

This publication is periodically updated by a national committee of diverse industry professionals and is published by the Tree Care Industry Association, Inc.

The following selected terms are defined in the above cited publication.

10.1 arboriculture: The art, science, technology, and business of commercial, public, and utility tree care.

10.33 pruning: The selective removal of plant parts to achieve defined objectives.

10.38 reduction: Arboricultural term referring to decreasing branch length or plant height and/or spread.

10.39 reduction cut: A pruning cut that removes the larger of two or more branches or stems, or one or more codominant stems(s), to a live lateral branch, typically at least 82 November 14, 2022 Item 11
White Residential Property
View Restoration Plan
Wisniewski & Associates 22-1005
August 2, 2022
3 one-third the diameter of the stem or branch being removed.

10.58 thinning: An arboriculture term used to describe selective pruning to reduce density of branches and foliage.

10.8 clean: Arboricultural term used to describe selective pruning to remove one or more of the following: dead, diseased, infested, rubbing, declining, detached and/or broken branches.

The following is from the 2008 version of the American National Standard for pruning.

It was not included in the 2017 version.

Since it is not defined every contractor who uses it has their own definition or explanation of “lacing”. This creates confusion and uncertainty about the intention and the outcome of the work.

With this in mind I propose a multi-year approach to restoring the views to the two properties while not overly stressing the trees and potentially leading to their decline.

There are five trees to be addressed based on the numbering system that has been established by Mr. Walton in his report for the Michaels. 83 November 14, 2022 Item 11
White Residential Property
View Restoration Plan
Wisniewski & Associates 22-1005
August 2, 2022
4 Objective
Restore the scenic views to the fullest extent possible without excessive damage to the trees so that they remain viable. The proposed work schedules below describe a series of distinct pruning events over a five-year period which cumulatively will have success in restoring views. Spreading the view restoration pruning work out over the course of five years will minimize damage to the trees’ health.

Each Proposed Schedule of Work is a distinct pruning event and the work performed at one event is not intended to limit the described pruning work of any later event.

Proposed Schedule of Work
Winter 2022 - 2023
Limit the removal of live material from any tree during this even to a maximum of 20%.

Proceed with the pruning in the following order of work.

1. Clean the canopies of all five trees.

Then use reduction cuts to reduce the width of the west side of the canopy+/- 5’. Stop removing or reducing branches at the point when the downhill trees and vegetation block the view.
84 November 14, 2022 Item 11
White Residential Property
View Restoration Plan
Wisniewski & Associates 22-1005
August 2, 2022
5 Next use reduction cuts to remove the tallest branches +/- 5’ deep into the canopy.

In time, with continued regular pruning, this tree will also become a skyline tree with framed views through the canopy.

Do no further work on the tree until the next pruning cycle.

7. The site shall be left in a clean condition and the debris shall be properly disposed of.

Winter 2023-2024
Limit the removal of live material from any tree during this event to a maximum of 20%.

Prior to scheduling the work, review the current conditions of the trees to determine if any modifications need to be made to the work plan.

Proceed with the pruning in the following order of work.

1. Clean the canopies of all five trees.

2. For Trees 1, 2, and 3 use reduction and thinning cuts to provide 10’ clearance from and above any chimney or flue pipe to reduce wildfire risk. See attached “San Diego Regional Urban Forest Clearance Standards for Trees”.
85 November 14, 2022 Item 11
White Residential Property
View Restoration Plan
Wisniewski & Associates 22-1005
August 2, 2022
6 3. For Tree 1 maintain the enhanced view through the center of the tree where the foliage and branches are the least dense use reduction and thinning cuts to expand the view so that is +/-6’ wide and is open through the top of the canopy. See Photo No. 1.