Agenda, first session — Del Mar City Council, December 12, 2022

Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda

VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
December 12, 2022 City Council Meeting

INFORMATION RECEIVED

AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA

WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)
From: Brent Cook <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2022 12:31 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box <[email protected]>
Cc: Ashley Jones <[email protected]>
Subject: Red Dot Item
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Del Mar Council Members and Staff,
I wish to add a Red Dot item to this coming Dec 12 meeting as suggested by Ashley and am hoping this is the right way.

I will paste below previous conversations and the items covered in our meeting with Ashley, John Barnett and Del Mar regarding 3 Torrey Pines that were removed from the Pines Bluff Preserve located adjacent to the Crest Canyon Preserve between Crest Ave and Klish Ave.

Over a dozen local residents have been in communication with Ashley and about seven of us me with Ashley and Del Mar maintenance crew on site to discuss the poor state of the park left by the tree removal crew.

More importantly we want the city to follow its own mandate to replace Torrey Pines 1 for 1 and at least plant two Torrey Pines back in the preserve. We were informed that CA state water restrictions prevent you from doing so, but in fact there is no such specification regarding trees. We would like the council to OK the planting to two trees where three were taken out. Residents adjacent to the preserve have promised to water the trees until established.

As an aside, the preserve is a natural catchment basin that receives and stores water as this photo from Dec 11 demonstrates.

Brent and Kim Cook
750 Hoska, Del Mar
1 December 12, 2022 Item - Public Oral Communications
Pine Bluff Preserve Meeting w/ Ashley Jones, Del Mar City Manager Nov 7, 2022
1) Treatment—No attempt to treat trees despite minor damage to two of them https://www.delmar.ca.us/560/Bark-Beetles
As most of you know, there was some damage to the lower limbs of the trees but overall the trees appeared reasonably healthy and probably could have been saved, or at least attempted to be saved.

Effectiveness of any treatment is dependent on the severity of the attack. However, there are several ways to stop initial attacks from becoming more severe and discourage the beetles. o If the beetles have already infested the tree, it is recommended to water the tree twice a month with a soaker hose -soaker hoses are made of porous material that “leak” or seep water all along their length - or drip line to allow water to get to deep roots. A general rule of thumb is to use 10 gallons per inch of trunk diameter at shoulder height.
o There is also a bagged anti-aggregate pheromone called verbenone that can be hung on a tree. The pheromone imitates the scent of a ‘fully occupied’ tree that discourages other bark beetles from attacking the tree.
o Remove any limbs that are infested so those beetles do not attack other parts of that tree or other trees.
o The injection and pheromone traps are also helpful to remove beetles from trees. 2) Tree Removal Requirements: No communication w/ residents Del Mar City codes regarding the process and requirements for removing vegetation, specifically Torrey Pines, and provide below some specifics, with links to the details as outlined in the Municipal Code here:
https://library.municode.com/ca/del_mar/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT23BUCO_CH23.50T R”
Pulling from the City Code:
"C: The species Torrey Pine, the species Monterey Cypress, and all species of trees located within the Central Commercial zone and the environmentally sensitive Open Space Overlay zone are of particular significance to the City, and should therefore be protected to conserve the environmental qualities of the City."
Specifically, to remove a tree a notice of intent has to be filed with the Planning and Community Development Director. If it is within the public right of way, a Tree Removal Permit is required.

Importantly, an application has to be filed and persons owning property adjacent to the site must be mailed the details and dates of the proposed tree removal for public review! A.

Application. A person who desires to cut down, remove, destroy, or move a Protected Tree shall make application for a Tree Removal Permit to the Planning and Community Development 2 December 12, 2022 Item - Public Oral Communications
Department on a form provided by the City. A processing fee, established by resolution of the City Council, shall be required. The application shall contain the number, species, and size of the trees involved, a statement on the reason for the requested action, a site plan depicting the location of tree(s) proposed for removal and other trees located in the vicinity, and any other pertinent information determined necessary by the Planning and Community Development Director or Design Review Board. This additional information may include a report from a qualified, professional arborist selected and employed by the City. The applicant shall be required to reimburse the City for the cost of such a report.

Noticing. A notice of the filing of an application for a Tree Removal Permit shall be mailed by the City to persons owning property adjacent to the project site. The mailed notice of application shall advise persons of the date of action and that the application is available for public review at City Hall.
the Director or the Design Review Board may deny a Tree Removal Permit if any of the following conditions exist:

1. The tree removal will, even after the imposition of permit conditions, endanger the public health, safety, peace, or welfare;

2. The tree removal will have an adverse impact on the aesthetics of the area surrounding the proposed activity;

3. Reasonable alternatives to a concurrent development proposal exist which would eliminate the need to remove a Protected Tree; or
3) Damage not remediated—The preserve needs to be cleaned up Any damage, etc., must be remedied as laid out below:
"Any person, including but not limited to the property owner and the person performing the work, who violates any provision of this Chapter or any condition imposed upon any permit issued hereunder shall remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation may include, but is not limited to, the following:

1. Replacement of removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section 23.50.090 of this Chapter; and
3 December 12, 2022 Item - Public Oral Communications

2. Payment to the City's Tree Mitigation Fund of an amount representing the value of any removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal."
What is obvious is that the city did not inform those of us with property adjacent to the open space or impacted by the tree removal, nor allow for public input as required by the City Code.

Furthermore, they did not consider alternatives that could have saved the tress as outlined by the city on its website under “Bark Beetles, Treatment” (see: https://www.delmar.ca.us/560/BarkBeetles). Nor was there any consideration of the adverse affects on the surrounding area, as required in the city code!
4) The City is required under the code to replace Torrey pines at a rate of 1:1 Email from John Barnett Nov 3
Hi Brent,
In talking to our Public Works Director, Joe Bride, he is agreeable to having newly planted trees watered by private residents. However, he and the City Council have determined that any replanting needs to wait until the drought restrictions are lifted. I will be keeping a log of trees to be replaced in the future.

Thanks,
John Barnett
Landscape Specialist
City of Del Mar Public Works
2240 Jimmy Durante Blvd.
(858)755-3294
5) Water restrictions do not prevent replacing Torrey Pines Note Caltrans plants trees along new highway, Del Mar planted all along Hiway 1. Numerous other examples.

The City has had permanent mandatory water restrictions since 2016 (see below). The Level 2 actions being implemented are in addition to those water conservation rules under the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan.

Level 2 water restrictions include the following actions for all City of San Diego water customers:
o Areas with no irrigation system must use a hand-held hose with a shutoff nozzle, hand-held container or a garden hose sprinkler system on a timer. o Irrigation is prohibited during and within 48 hours of a rain event. o Landscape irrigation is limited to no more than three days per week before 10 a.m. or after 6 p.m. This does not apply to commercial growers or nurseries, nor to the irrigation of golf course greens and trees.
o Use of recycled or non-potable water, when available, is required for construction purposes. o Prohibition of irrigating non-functional turf with potable water. 4 December 12, 2022 Item - Public Oral Communications
o Washing of vehicles at residences is prohibited. Washing is still permitted at commercial car washes.
o
6) Moon Valley Nursery has two 11’ Torrey Pines for $2500 planted and warranteed for a year Residents adjacent to preserve will water trees as needed Hi Brent,
The City is required under the code to replace Torrey pines at a rate of 1:1. That being said, the big hurdle we currently have is drought restrictions and reducing our water consumption. Typically, our contractor that does the planting, also provides the trees since they give us a 1 year warranty on them.

If we are able to work out the logistics of ensuring that new plantings will be watered, that may expedite the replacement process.

I will work on finding out if we need to make any formal agreement to make it happen.

Thanks,
John Barnett
Landscape Specialist
City of Del Mar Public Works
2240 Jimmy Durante Blvd.
(858)755-3294
Brent and Kim Cook
750 Hoska, Del Mar
Brent Cook
Exploration Analyst/Geologist
cell: +1 858-736-7994
www.explorationinsights.com
[email protected]
5 December 12, 2022 Item - Public Oral Communications
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Red dot for Item 6: Pine Bluff Property Zoning -----Original Message-----
From: Laura DeMarco <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2022 7:18 PM
To: Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>; Dwight Worden <[email protected]>; David Druker <[email protected]>; Dan Quirk <[email protected]>; Tracy Martinez <[email protected]> Cc: Ashley Jones <[email protected]>
Subject: Red dot for Item 6: Pine Bluff Property Zoning CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Council Members and Staff,
The Pine Bluff "Preserve" is located in the middle of a residential zone and is not usable and accessible public parkland.

This property is similar in size to the former city-owned Balboa reservoir property which was also not easily accessible for public parkland. That's why the leaders of the Shores Campaign supported the city's public auction of the property for $4.4M with $3M of the proceeds used to pay the remainder of the $8.5M Shores Park purchase ($3M also raised by the Winston School and $2.5M by Community Campaign) and the remaining $1M used to fund construction of the new 17th St. Lifeguard HQ.

The city-owned Pine Bluff property could likely be sold for over $3M for residential development and the proceeds used to fund building affordable housing at the Fairgrounds. The property's sale proceeds added to the existing $1M Housing Reserve Fund would bring the total to $4M which could be used to finance construction of the proposed 50+ unit affordable housing development at the Fairgrounds.

Given the negative impact of COVID on the 22nd DAA's finances, the City of Del Mar must be able to fund the affordable housing project at the Fairgrounds.

Therefore, it would be preferable to keep the Pine Bluff property's current R-10 zoning.

Thanks for your consideration,
Laura
1 December 12, 2022 Item 06
1 Melinda Gould
From: Brent Cook <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2022 11:12 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Ashley Jones
Subject: Red Dot Item #6 for Dec 12 council meeting
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Council Members and Staff.

This email is in regards to Red Dot Item 6: Pine Bluff Preserve Zoning and reply to Laura DeMarco’s email of Dec 6. https://www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_12122022-3106 Laura states that the Pine Bluff Preserve is not accessible or usable by the public. This is a completely inaccurate description of the preserve.

In fact, the small preserve is easily accessed from either Crest Ave just past the junctions with Hoska and from Klish Ave at the upper end of Orchid Way. Additionally there is a small trail that leads from Crest to the bluff overlook.

I live adjacent to the preserve and see a dozen people a day walk their dog, stroll through the park and ride bikes along the path. Importantly, the preserve provides continuity to the Crest Canyon Park and San Dieguito Lagoon.

My understanding is that this small open space was purchased by nearby residents (before I moved here) and donated to the city as an open space preserve. The suggestion that this should be sold by the city and thereafter developed for one more multi million dollar, mansion sized house to fund affordable housing is counter to the intent the reason residents granted the property to the city and completely unjustified.

As you may, or may not know, the city recently cut down three mature Torrey Pines in the preserve. About a dozen local residents petitioned the city to replace the Torrey Pines (as per the city mandate of 1 for 1 replacement) and met with City Manager Ashley Jones on the site. That meeting and correspondence make it clear that the Pine Bluff Preserve is both loved and used by Del Mar residents.

We intend to add a Red Dot item do the Dec 12 meeting regarding replacing the Torrey Pines we lost.

Brent and Kim Cook
750 Hoska Dr
Del Mar, CA
1 December 12, 2022 Item 06
1 Melinda Gould
From: Laura DeMarco <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 12:00 PM
To: Terry Gaasterland; Dwight Worden; David Druker; Dan Quirk; Tracy Martinez Cc: Ashley Jones; City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Re: Red dot for Item 6: Pine Bluff Property Zoning Attachments: Pine Bluff property.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Council Members and Staff,
Please confirm if the Pine Bluff property was donated to the city. If so, the intent of its donors should be honored.

As shown in the plot map attached, the Pine Bluff property is adjacent to 912 Crest and is only accessible to fire engines parked on Crest, near the dangerous blind curve.

Since the property is close to Crest Canyon, the highest wildfire risk area, the city must maintain the property and have firefighters inspect it annually so it does not become a fire hazard.

Firefighters should also be consulted about the location of any new plantings to minimize fire risk. Ideally, there would be 100 feet of defensible space to adjacent structures.

Thanks,
Laura
On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 07:18:14 PM PST, Laura DeMarco <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Council Members and Staff,
The Pine Bluff "Preserve" is located in the middle of a residential zone and is not usable and accessible public parkland.

Given the negative impact of COVID on the 22nd DAA's finances, the City of Del Mar must be able to fund the affordable housing project at the Fairgrounds.
1 December 12, 2022 Item 06
2 Therefore, it would be preferable to keep the Pine Bluff property's current R-10 zoning.

Thanks for your consideration,
Laura
2 December 12, 2022 Item 06
3 December 12, 2022 Item 06

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA QUESTIONS
DECEMBER 12, 2022
Item 6 – General Plan Amendment (GPA22-001), Rezone (R22-001), and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA22-002) to Correct Inconsistencies in Map Records and Rezone Various City-Owned Properties
Agenda Item 6 is needed to complete implementation of prior actions taken by the City Council in 1996 and 1997; and must be completed per Housing Element Program 1H to correct the zoning for the unimproved Public Facilities parcel on 28th Street. The requested action will remove the existing zoning/LCP conflicts with the Community Plan (General Plan) land use designation for the subject City-owned parcels, which currently do not align with the underlying zoning designation for the parcels due to a prior processing error.

1. The PF zone (DMMC section 30.31.010) currently reads in part that the PF zone is for: "...publicly owned land set aside, or in use, to support public schools and governmental offices and facilities." If the city at some point decides to sell one or more of these parcels to other than a government entity, will a rezone be required? It seems so, as private parties typically can't undertake public/governmental uses. The staff report indicates a future amendment is contemplated to allow residential use in the PF zone.

Shouldn't that be addressed first? Shouldn't the city decide in advance if any of these parcels is appropriate for sale?
Staff Response: The City Council is not being asked to make a decision about whether or not to sell or develop any City-owned properties with this action. The requested action would not preclude the future sale of any City-owned parcel. Any future decisions by the City Council considering whether or not to sell City-owned property would consider the context applicable at the time to that scenario. In some cases, a rezone action may be required for such actions as a condition of the sale. In accordance with Housing Element Program 1H, a subsequent action is required to occur by April 2024 to specify that affordable housing is an allowed use in the PF zone (on all parcels except for Shores Park). The adopted Housing Element specifies that the initial clean-up action for the 28th Street parcel is required to be addressed by the City by December 2022.

2. The Government Code requires that zoning be consistent with the Community Plan. The staff report addresses consistency between the land use designations and the maps, but more is required. Gov't Code Section 65860(a)(2) requires "consistency" and defines "consistency" as requiring:
"...the various land uses authorized by the ordinance are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the plan. Has the staff done an analysis of the proposed changes for consistency with "objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs" of 1 December 12, 2022 Item 06
the Community Plan? The Community Plan is full of stated goals and objectives that go beyond the land use designations. For example, transportation and circulation goals and policies, conservation policies, open space preservation policies, etc.

Staff Response: Adoption of the Resolution and Ordinance/Local Coastal Program Amendment will ensure that each of the eight City-owned parcels will comply with the Government Code by aligning the zoning with the existing Community Plan land use designation for each parcel. The Community Plan already identifies these eight parcels respectively for public parkland or public facilities, in accordance with actions taken by the City Council in 1996 and 1997. At that time, the City Council also adopted corresponding rezone actions for each parcel; however, the rezone actions did not take effect. Because it has now been more than five years since the public hearings were held, a new rezone action must be processed with the required Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA). The respective public parkland or public facilities land use designations in the Community Plan are existing, therefore there is no need for the type of comprehensive analysis of Community Plan policies that has been requested. The allowable uses per the proposed underlying zoning are consistent with the corresponding land use designation. As mentioned above, Housing Element program implementation will further ensure consistency relating to housing potential by explicitly stating that affordable housing is an allowed use in the PF zone.

3. It is my understanding that Del Mar committed to do a housing evaluation of all our PF zones, except for Shores Park, which was taken off the table. Will the proposed rezone of the 7 parcels to PF trigger a housing review? If so shouldn't we do that before the rezone?
Staff Response: A housing review is not needed for the requested action. As stated above, the City Council already took action in 1997 to adopt public facilities as the land use and zoning for these parcels. This is a clean-up action to finalize processing of prior rezones that were left in an incomplete status because the final steps in the process were not previously completed as required. The City completed evaluation and analysis of each of the public facilities properties as it relates to potential for affordable housing. The 5th Cycle Housing Element North Commercial, Professional Commercial, and Public Facilities Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) was certified by the City Council on September 8, 2020, to meet required program obligations in the 5th Cycle Housing Element (three separate housing programs) which studied all public facilities parcels including Shores Park. The 5th Cycle Final PEIR (State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2019029058) is available at:
www.delmar.ca.us/Archive.aspx?ADID=1428
The City then conducted further analysis of the public facilities properties as part of the preparation work for the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. This analysis is reflected in the 6th Cycle Housing Element PEIR adopted by the Council. The 2 December 12, 2022 Item 06
6 th Cycle Final PEIR was certified by the City Council on October 5, 2020 (SCH No. 2020029064) and is available at:
www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/7171/Final-PEIR-91020 The adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element identifies the City-owned 28th Street lot as a site with potential for three lower income units. Agenda Item 6 is consistent with the adopted Housing Element and is a required action the City Council indicated it would address by December 2022. While the water towers were also analyzed and considered as potential sites for affordable housing, the water towers were identified as necessary public facilities infrastructure in consideration of input provided by the Public Works Director in a October 2, 2020 memorandum (see attached). These sites were not selected by the City Council as housing sites in the adopted Housing Element. The 6th Cycle Housing Element includes a statement that explicitly excludes Shores Park from being considered for housing consistent with City Council direction. No further “housing review” of these parcels is needed at this time.

4. Is there time pressure to do these amendments now?
Staff Response: In accordance with the Government Code, these actions should be completed as soon as possible to establish consistency between the Community Plan and zoning. The 6th Cycle Housing Element Program 1H indicates the action will be completed by December 2022. Further delay of the item is not recommended.

5. Would rezoning the proposed properties to “Public Facility” or Public Parkland prevent the development of city owned affordable housing or the sell of the PF properties?
Staff Response: The requested action would not preclude future decisions of the City Council to develop or sell any City-owned properties.

6. Which water towers are functioning at this time and which, if any, are anticipated to be used in the future?
Staff Response: All of the water towers have been evaluated and confirmed as currently utilized and necessary public facilities by the City’s Public Works Director, which occurred prior to 6th Cycle Housing Element adoption. See memo from Public Works Director Joe Bride dated October 2, 2020, attached. All four water reservoirs are active and currently supplying water to the distribution system.

The information in the memo is still accurate.

7. Why was the 28th street listed to change from a residential to a Public Facility? Would this rezoning prevent the City from potentially selling the 3 December 12, 2022 Item 06
property for private development and using the funds to construct affordable housing in an alternative location?
Staff Response: Agenda Item 6 is needed to complete implementation of actions taken by the City Council in 1996 and 1997; and must be completed per Housing Element Program 1H to correct the zoning for the Public Facilities parcel on 28th Street. The requested action would not preclude future decisions of the City Council to develop or sell any City-owned properties, including the 28th Street parcel.

8. Why not sell the Pine Bluff Preserve property and the Zuni property and use those funds to develop affordable housing at the Fairgrounds or another suitable location?
Staff Response: Agenda Item 6 is needed to complete implementation of actions taken by the City Council in 1996 and 1997; and must be completed per Housing Element Program 1H to correct the zoning for the Public Facilities parcel on 28th Street. The City Council is not being asked to consider the potential sale or development of any of these properties with this action. As mentioned, the requested action would not preclude future decisions of the City Council to develop or sell any City-owned properties, including the Pine Bluff Preserve or water tower parcels.

9. Why have the Zuni property as a PF when the tank isn’t functional anymore? And, the Pine Bluff property would not be a useable park. Both of these properties are similar to the city owned Balboa property that was sold.

Staff Response: As mentioned above, all of the water towers have been identified as necessary public facilities infrastructure by the Public Works Director on October 2, 2020 (see attached) prior to the 6th Cycle Housing Element. City Council consideration of whether to sell or develop these properties as uses for something that differs from the current Community Plan is separate project that could be considered by the City Council at the upcoming City Council Goals & Priorities session in February 2023 if so desired.

10.Would rezoning prevent any housing to go on the water tank properties on Crest or Pine Needles?
Staff Response: All of the water towers have been identified as necessary public facilities infrastructure by the Public Works Department. The requested action would not preclude future decisions of the City Council to develop or sell any Cityowned properties, including the Crest and Pine Needles water tower sites.

11. About 50% of the Crest water tower property has an undeveloped area. This part abuts Hoska. The ad hoc Housing Element Advisory Committee recommended including this parcel toward affordable housing. Can half of 4 December 12, 2022 Item 06
this parcel be carved out as a separate residential parcel that could be used for affordable housing or sold for housing funds?
Staff Response: The Public Works Director provided a written response to this inquiry about potential use for housing when it was raised in the Ad Hoc Task Force Housing Subcommittee report that recommended various housing production strategies for the 6th Cycle Housing Element. See the attached Memorandum dated October 2, 2020, which indicates the Crest Water Tower property is congested with public facility infrastructure (i.e., water underground vaults and three pipelines) that run through the middle of the property to Hoska Lane then run north to Hoska Drive. The conclusion was that affordable housing development does not appear to be viable at this location because any structures developed would need to be located at least 20 feet away from the pipelines. In consideration of this information, the City Council did not identify this as a housing site for the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

12.About 33% of the Zuni water tower property has an undeveloped area. This part can be entered at grade from 15th Street. The Ad Hoc Task Force Housing Subcommittee recommended including this parcel toward affordable housing. Can a portion of this parcel be carved out as a separate residential parcel that could be used for affordable housing or sold for housing funds?
Staff Response: The Public Works Director provided a written response to this inquiry about potential use for housing when it was raised in the Ad Hoc Task Force Housing Subcommittee report that recommended various housing production strategies for the 6th Cycle Housing Element. See the attached Memorandum dated October 2, 2020, which indicates the Zuni Water Tower property is necessary public facilities infrastructure for fire flow water storage capacity and that is it was also identified as a possible storage alternative the City’s future recycled water system. Some cost analysis details were provided identifying additional studies and improvements that would be needed. In consideration of this information, the City Council did not identify this as a housing site for the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

13.Alternatively, is the Zuni water tower used? If not, can the structures be condemned and the parcel sold as a large residential parcel or used for affordable housing?
Staff Response: See response above. This property was identified as necessary public infrastructure. Additional studies and improvements would be needed to explore alternative uses. As mentioned, the City Council did not identify this as a housing site for the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
5 December 12, 2022 Item 06

14.An area of the Pine Needles water tower property has an undeveloped area, west of the structure. From SANGIS, it seems that the house to the south encroaches on the water tower driveway right of way. The ad hoc Housing Element Advisory Committee recommended including this parcel toward affordable housing. Can a portion of this parcel be carved out as a separate residential parcel that could be used for affordable housing or sold for housing funds?
Staff Response: This small site is located within the wildland urban interface (WUI), which is a location subject to fire risk. The Public Works Department provided a written response to this inquiry about potential use for housing when it was raised in the Ad Hoc Task Force Housing Subcommittee report that recommended various housing production strategies for the 6th Cycle Housing Element. See the attached Memorandum dated October 2, 2020, which indicates the Pine Needles Water Tower property is congested with public facility infrastructure (i.e., significant electrical and water underground vaults/pipelines) that extend out to the west and south of the tank and travel west to Pine Needles Drive. The conclusion was that this is critical public facilities infrastructure and that affordable housing development does not appear to be viable at this location because any structures developed would need to be located at least 20 feet away from the public facilities infrastructure. In consideration of this information, the City Council did not identify this as a housing site for the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

15.The area west of the 11th St water tower property has an undeveloped area. This part can be entered at grade from 11th St (see below) and is next door to a new ADU built at the level of 11th St behind a home to the north on Amphitheatre. The ad hoc Housing Element Advisory Committee recommended including this parcel toward affordable housing. Can a portion of this parcel be carved out as a separate residential parcel that could be used for affordable housing or sold for housing funds?

Staff Response: The Public Works Director provided a written response to this inquiry about potential use for housing when it was raised in the Ad Hoc Task Force Housing Subcommittee report that recommended various housing production strategies for the 6th Cycle Housing Element. See the attached Memorandum dated October 2, 2020, which indicates the 11th Street Water Tower property is congested with public facility infrastructure (i.e., water underground vaults/pipelines) that extend out to the northwest corner and travel to Highland Avenue. The infrastructure is needed for operational water storage and fire flow water storage uses in addition to the other existing water towers. In addition, existing erosion and flooding conditions on the property were identified as a constraint. The conclusion was that that affordable housing development does not appear to be viable at this location because any structures developed would need to be located at least 20 feet away from the public facilities infrastructure and there is not sufficient distance from Highland Avenue. In consideration of this 6 December 12, 2022 Item 06
information, the City Council did not identify this as a housing site for the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

16.The Pine Bluff Preserve parcel was not considered by the ad-hoc Housing Element Advisory Committee. It is important to consider the strategic value of this parcel before any additional zoning action.

Staff Response: The respective zoning for each parcel was never identified as a constraint to potential housing for the water tower properties. City-owned sites can be used for public uses. The responses provided to the subcommittee were focused on the existing public facility infrastructure development and each facility was determined to be a necessary public facility. The Public Works Department provided a written response to this inquiry about potential use for housing when it was raised in the Ad Hoc Task Force Housing Subcommittee report that recommended various housing production strategies for the 6th Cycle Housing Element. See the attached Memorandum dated October 2, 2020. In consideration of this information, the City Council did not identify any water towers as housing sites for the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
7 December 12, 2022 Item 06
TO: CJ Johnson, City Manager
Joseph D. Smith, Planning and Community Development Director FROM: Joe Bride, Public Works Director
DATE: October 2, 2020
RE: Public Works Response to Housing Production and Preservation Subcommittee Recommendations
Housing Production and Preservation Subcommittee’s Alternative # 1 Zuni Water Tank property – based on land value and location of lot we suggest selling it versus developing it and using the proceeds to fund other affordable housing programs noted in options 2 through 8 below. (Estimated sale price of $4.5M to $5.0M. Expenses required to reconfigure water system and remove tank). This property is owned by the City Water System, however, there is an opportunity for the City Council to direct proceeds from the sale to the Housing Fund as was done with sale of the City owned Balboa property to partially fund Shores Park.

Public Works Response to Alternative # 1 “Not Recommended” A limited water system master plan study from 2014 recommended abandoning the Zuni Tank (1 Million Gallon capacity) and serving the Zuni Tank customers with 1MG of unused/surplus Operational Storage from the 11th Street Tank (2 MG capacity). However, the study did not account for Fire Flow Storage requirements and the 11th Street Tank does not have the capacity to handle both the Operational Storage and Fire Flow Storage requirements from 11th Street Tank plus Zuni Tank. Also, many Del Mar residents are connected to water supply lines from the City of San Diego and are not connected to water tanks. Del Mar’s Water System has a cumulative water storage deficiency (when calculating total Operational Storage and Fire Flow Storage requirements for the entire City) which would worsen with the loss of the 1 MG of storage in Zuni Tank. Since the 2014 study, California Fire Flow Storage requirements have increased, and the calculated deficiencies have worsened.

Supplemental points to Alternative # 1:

1. The 2014 study/recommendation was developed without a Fire Flow analysis. This alternative would require the entire water system to be re-modeled and specific pipeline/ pressure regulatory improvements would have to be specified. The complete Engineering Study would cost approximately $45,000 and take up to two months.

2. Abandoning the Zuni Tank and modifying the water system for 11th Street Tank would cost approximately $1,000,000. Worse, the work would require significant construction impacts including installing a new 20-inch water pipeline along Camino del Mar/Jimmy Durante Boulevard from 11th Street to David Way.
8 December 12, 2022 Item 06

Page 2 of 2 ends

3. Public Works does not have the current capacity to deliver this alternative in a short time frame.

4. The Zuni Tank was also identified as a possible storage alternative for the city’s future recycled water system.

Housing Production and Preservation Subcommittee’s Alternative # 2 Pine Needles Water Tank - Property needs to be assessed for space for a Tiny Home beside water tank – based on initial review potential for 1 unit. The City would receive monthly revenue from this non-performing asset.

Public Works Response to Alternative # 2 “Not Recommended” This tank property is very congested with significant electrical/water underground vaults/piping which extend out the west and south side of the tank and travel west to Pine Needles Drive. Any new structures would have to be constructed 20 feet away from these facilities. The only small area with enough clearance from these critical facilities would be in the northwest lot corner.

Housing Production and Preservation Subcommittee’s Alternative # 3 10th Street / Highland Water Tank (11th Street Tank) – lot boundaries need to be assessed to see if adding a Tiny Home would work alongside water tank – based on initial review potential for 1 to 2 units. The City would receive monthly revenue from this non-performing asset.

Public Works Response to Alternative # 3 “Not Recommended” This tank property is also very congested with significant water underground vaults and pipelines which extend out of the northwest tank corner and travel to Highland Avenue. Any new structures would have to be constructed 20 feet away from these pipelines. Limited areas North, East and South of the tank are subject to erosion and problematic during the rainy season. There may be a small useable area tucked into the extreme northwest corner; however, that area is too close to Highland Avenue.

Housing Production and Preservation Subcommittee’s Alternative # 4 Water Tower on Crest - needs to be assessed for potential replacement – if decommissioned and tank removed from this lot there is a potential for up to 10 units. If not removed there is some open space behind tank (west of tank) but topography is not known. This was assessed in 2014 for sale and we recommend that it be used for affordable housing stock production.

Public Works Response to Alternative # 4 “Not Recommended” This tank property is also very congested with significant water underground vaults and three pipelines which extend from Crest Road; travel west through the middle of the property to Hoska Lane; and then turn north towards Hoska Drive. Any new structures would have to be constructed 20 feet away from these pipelines; which does not appear viable.

Attachments:

Attachment A – Water Facilities and Pressure Zone (Exhibit 2-1 to the Del Mar Water and Sewer Master Plan of 2014)
9 December 12, 2022 Item 06
vTq
vTq
vTq
vTq vTq
vTqq
vTq
vTq
vTq
vTq
SÎÍ
SÎÍ
SÎÍ
TU
TU
TU
TU
R!
R!
R!
!(
!(
Ú[
!"^$
Pacific Ocean
4th Street
PRV
9th Street
PRV
15th Street
PRS
Orbia
PRV and PRS
Forest
PRV
Racetrack View
PRV and Turnout
Luzon/Grand
PRV
Public Works
Yard PRV
San Dieguito
PRS
Via de la Valle
Interconnection
and PRV
Flower Hill
Interconnection
17TH ST
15TH ST

EL AMIGO RD
29TH ST

GRAND AVE
15TH ST
9TH ST
CREST
RD
20TH ST
19TH ST
CA

M NI O DEL M
AR
8TH ST
13TH ST
12TH ST

JIMMY DURANTE BLVD
18TH ST

MAIDEN LN

STRATFORD
CT

STRATFORD
CT
7TH ST
4TH ST
21ST ST
6TH ST
8TH ST

COAST BLVD
NOB
AVE
22ND ST
28TH ST
27TH ST
10TH ST
26TH ST
25TH ST
23RD ST
24TH ST
OCEAN
AVE

CARMEL VALLEY RD

SAN DIEGUITO
DR

VIA DE LA VALLE

CAMINO DEL MA
R
CAMINO

DEL MAR
CAMINO

DEL MAR
11TH ST

GRAND AVE

COAST BLVD
14TH ST
CREST
RD
Torrey Pines
Reservoir, PRV
and Turnout
11th St Reservoir and
N. High Zone Emergency
Pump Station
Zuni
Reservoir
Crest Reservoir
PRV and Turnout

DEL MAR WATER AND SEWER MASTER PLAN
Water Facilities and Pressure Zone
Exhibit 2-1
° 0 0.25 0.5
Miles
11/24/2014 JN M:\Mdata\131157\GIS\MXD\Water_Facilities_and_Pressure_Zones_11x17.mxd DR Source: City of Del Mar, Eagle Aerial 2013
!( Interconnection
R! Turnout from City of San Diego
SÎÍ Pressure Relief Station (PRS)
vTq Pressure Reducing Station (PRV)
TU Reservoirs
Ú[ Pump Stations (PS)
Pipelines
City Boundary
Pressure Zones
High
Intermediate
Stratford
Zuni
Low
10 December 12, 2022 Item 06
City of Del Mar
Memorandum
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk DATE: December 9, 2022
SUBJECT: Red Dot Item 7: Results of the 2022 General Municipal Election The precinct results referenced in Resolution (Attachment A) were provided by the San Diego Registrar of Voters (ROV) after the publication of the agenda packet. Staff recommends that the City Council adopted the revised Resolution (Attachment A) which includes the final Del Mar precinct results and the certified election results (Exhibit A to Attachment A).
1 December 12, 2022 Item 07
2 December 12, 2022 Item 07
3 December 12, 2022 Item 07
4 December 12, 2022 Item 07

GOVERNOR
DEM - GAVIN NEWSOM 574,121 55.78%
REP - BRIAN DAHLE 455,107 44.22%
Total 1,029,228

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
DEM - ELENI KOUNALAKIS 572,539 56.33%
REP - ANGELA E. UNDERWOOD
JACOBS
443,933 43.67%
Total 1,016,472

SECRETARY OF STATE
DEM - SHIRLEY N. WEBER 576,465 56.96%
REP - ROB BERNOSKY 435,652 43.04%
Total 1,012,117

CONTROLLER
DEM - MALIA M. COHEN 521,567 51.89%
REP - LANHEE J. CHEN 483,650 48.11%
Total 1,005,217

TREASURER
DEM - FIONA MA 559,423 55.64%
REP - JACK M. GUERRERO 446,089 44.36%
Total 1,005,512

ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEM - ROB BONTA 559,982 55.57%
REP - NATHAN HOCHMAN 447,711 44.43%
Total 1,007,693

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER
DEM - RICARDO LARA 566,150 56.71%
REP - ROBERT HOWELL 432,187 43.29%
Total 998,337
MEMBER, STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 4TH

DISTRICT (SAN DIEGO PORTION ONLY)
DEM - MIKE SCHAEFER 468,963 60.63%
DEM - DAVID DODSON 304,555 39.37%
Total 773,518
Registered
Voters
Turnout
Total Registration and Turnout 1,925,738 1,043,490
Mail 939,102
Vote Centers 104,388
UNITED STATES SENATOR (Full Term)
DEM - ALEX PADILLA 586,284 57.57%
REP - MARK P. MEUSER 432,027 42.43%
Total 1,018,311
UNITED STATES SENATOR (Partial/Unexpired Term)
DEM - ALEX PADILLA 582,966 57.48%
REP - MARK P. MEUSER 431,303 42.52%
Total 1,014,269
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE 48TH DISTRICT
(SAN DIEGO PORTION ONLY)
REP - DARRELL ISSA 106,362 59.99%
DEM - STEPHEN HOULAHAN 70,952 40.01%
Total 177,314
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE 49TH DISTRICT
(SAN DIEGO PORTION ONLY)
DEM - MIKE LEVIN 106,734 56.83%
REP - BRIAN MARYOTT 81,080 43.17%
Total 187,814
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE 50TH DISTRICT
DEM - SCOTT PETERS 168,816 62.84%
REP - COREY GUSTAFSON 99,819 37.16%
Total 268,635
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE 51ST DISTRICT
DEM - SARA JACOBS 144,186 61.86%
REP - STAN CAPLAN 88,886 38.14%
Total 233,072
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE 52ND DISTRICT
DEM - JUAN VARGAS 100,686 66.67%
REP - TYLER GEFFENEY 50,330 33.33%
Total 151,016
STATE SENATOR 18TH DISTRICT (SAN DIEGO

PORTION ONLY)
DEM - STEVE PADILLA 78,273 61.44%
REP - ALEJANDRO GALICIA 49,127 38.56%
Total 127,400
STATE SENATOR 32ND DISTRICT (SAN DIEGO

PORTION ONLY)
REP - KELLY SEYARTO 2,406 56.99%
DEM - BRIAN NASH 1,816 43.01%
Total 4,222
Printed: Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:57 AM Page 1 of 16 2022 Statewide General Election
County of San Diego
November 8, 2022
Official Results (San Diego Portion Only)

5 December 12, 2022 Item 07
STATE SENATOR 38TH DISTRICT (SAN DIEGO

PORTION ONLY)
DEM - CATHERINE BLAKESPEAR 145,195 56.11%
REP - MATT GUNDERSON 113,558 43.89%
Total 258,753
STATE SENATOR 40TH DISTRICT
REP - BRIAN W. JONES 170,109 53.15%
DEM - JOSEPH C. ROCHA 149,948 46.85%
Total 320,057
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 74TH DISTRICT
(SAN DIEGO PORTION ONLY)
DEM - CHRIS DUNCAN 45,762 52.18%
REP - LAURIE DAVIES 41,935 47.82%
Total 87,697
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 75TH DISTRICT
REP - MARIE WALDRON 100,950 67.83%
REP - RANDY VOEPEL 47,888 32.17%
Total 148,838
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 76TH DISTRICT
DEM - BRIAN MAIENSCHEIN 78,895 51.62%
REP - KRISTIE BRUCE-LANE 73,944 48.38%
Total 152,839
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 77TH DISTRICT
DEM - TASHA BOERNER HORVATH 121,447 60.40%
REP - DAN DOWNEY 79,637 39.60%
Total 201,084
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 78TH DISTRICT
DEM - CHRIS WARD 118,215 68.55%
REP - ERIC E. GONZALES 54,234 31.45%
Total 172,449
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 79TH DISTRICT
DEM - AKILAH WEBER 67,674 63.87%
REP - CORBIN SABOL 38,290 36.13%
Total 105,964
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 80TH DISTRICT
DEM - DAVID ALVAREZ 67,309 69.26%
DEM - GEORGETTE GÓMEZ 29,869 30.74%
Total 97,178

CA CHIEF JUSTICE SUPREME COURT (GUERRERO)
YES 534,276 66.67%
NO 267,111 33.33%
Total 801,387
CA ASSOC. JUSTICE SUPREME COURT (LIU)
YES 513,686 65.54%
NO 270,135 34.46%
Total 783,821
CA ASSOC. JUSTICE SUPREME COURT (JENKINS)
YES 498,737 64.49%
NO 274,571 35.51%
Total 773,308
CA ASSOC. JUSTICE SUPREME COURT (GROBAN)
YES 488,880 63.69%
NO 278,760 36.31%
Total 767,640
CA PRESIDING JUSTICE, CT OF APPEAL, 4TH DIST.

DIV 1 (MCCONNELL)
YES 494,845 65.57%
NO 259,818 34.43%
Total 754,663
CA ASSOC. JUSTICE, CT OF APPEAL, 4TH DIST. DIV
1 (DO)
YES 476,553 63.57%
NO 273,134 36.43%
Total 749,687
CA ASSOC. JUSTICE, CT OF APPEAL, 4TH DIST. DIV
1 (BUCHANAN)
YES 461,222 62.94%
NO 271,592 37.06%
Total 732,814
CA PRESIDING JUSTICE, CT OF APPEAL, 4TH DIST.

DIV 2 (RAMIREZ)
YES 548,897 74.90%
NO 183,939 25.10%
Total 732,836
CA ASSOC. JUSTICE, CT OF APPEAL, 4TH DIST. DIV
2 (RAPHAEL)
YES 457,265 62.97%
NO 268,895 37.03%
Total 726,160
Printed: Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:57 AM Page 2 of 16 2022 Statewide General Election
County of San Diego
November 8, 2022
Official Results (San Diego Portion Only)

6 December 12, 2022 Item 07
CA ASSOC. JUSTICE, CT OF APPEAL, 4TH DIST. DIV
2 (CODRINGTON)
YES 564,009 77.37%
NO 164,992 22.63%
Total 729,001
CA ASSOC. JUSTICE, CT OF APPEAL, 4TH DIST. DIV
2 (MENETREZ)
YES 447,633 61.84%
NO 276,281 38.16%
Total 723,914
CA PRESIDING JUSTICE, CT OF APPEAL, 4TH DIST.

DIV 3 (O'LEARY)
YES 469,793 64.75%
NO 255,751 35.25%
Total 725,544
CA ASSOC. JUSTICE, CT OF APPEAL, 4TH DIST. DIV
3 (BEDSWORTH)
YES 430,449 59.71%
NO 290,469 40.29%
Total 720,918
CA ASSOC. JUSTICE, CT OF APPEAL, 4TH DIST. DIV
3 (SANCHEZ)
YES 456,824 62.87%
NO 269,820 37.13%
Total 726,644
CA ASSOC. JUSTICE, CT OF APPEAL, 4TH DIST. DIV
3 (MOORE)
YES 467,540 64.37%
NO 258,799 35.63%
Total 726,339
CA ASSOC. JUSTICE, CT OF APPEAL, 4TH DIST. DIV
3 (MOTOIKE)
YES 462,154 63.58%
NO 264,720 36.42%
Total 726,874
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OFFICE NO. 35
REBECCA KANTER 459,024 54.19%
MIKE MURPHY 387,965 45.81%
Total 846,989
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OFFICE NO. 36
PETE MURRAY 429,251 51.24%
PETER SINGER 408,535 48.76%
Total 837,786

STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
TONY K. THURMOND 498,154 60.36%
LANCE RAY CHRISTENSEN 327,205 39.64%
Total 825,359
COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 3RD DISTRICT
ALICIA MUÑOZ 105,621 66.22%
MARVIN J. ATTIQ 53,889 33.78%
Total 159,510
COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 5TH DISTRICT
RICK SHEA 111,042 57.36%
EMILY ORTIZ WICHMANN 82,547 42.64%
Total 193,589

GROSSMONT-CUYAMACA COMMUNITY COLLEGE

DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE
AREA 1
DESIREE KLAAR 15,428 53.06%
DAWN IVY 13,651 46.94%
Total 29,079

GROSSMONT-CUYAMACA COMMUNITY COLLEGE

DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE
AREA 2
DEBBIE JUSTESON 19,184 65.68%
MEGAN D. DUNN 10,024 34.32%
Total 29,208

PALOMAR COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
1 JUDY PATACSIL 26,386 53.70%
FRANK XU 22,750 46.30%
Total 49,136

PALOMAR COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
4 (SHORT TERM)
MICHELLE RAINS 30,499 56.92%
KARTIK RAJU 23,083 43.08%
Total 53,582
Printed: Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:57 AM Page 3 of 16 2022 Statewide General Election
County of San Diego
November 8, 2022
Official Results (San Diego Portion Only)

7 December 12, 2022 Item 07

PALOMAR COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
5 JACQUELINE KAISER 24,118 52.44%
NORMA MIYAMOTO 21,873 47.56%
Total 45,991

SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
1 ROBERT MORENO 8,721 51.53%
GONZALO JESUS QUINTERO 8,204 48.47%
Total 16,925

SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
4 CORINA SOTO 9,039 46.29%
MAE CASE 5,303 27.16%
HUMBERTO GURMILAN 5,186 26.56%
Total 19,528

SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
5 DON M. DUMAS 18,044 66.17%
ROSEMARIE BALLARD 9,225 33.83%
Total 27,269

BONSALL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING

BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA - B
MICHAEL GADDIS 1,181 73.67%
RICHARD H. BRUCK 422 26.33%
Total 1,603

BONSALL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING

BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA - D
ROGER MERCHAT 963 53.35%
BETH KLOPFENSTEIN 621 34.40%
MARK JONES 221 12.24%
Total 1,805

CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
1 MICHELE TSUTAGAWA WARD 3,111 56.95%
SHARON MCKEEMAN 2,352 43.05%
Total 5,463

CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
4 GRETCHEN VURBEFF 3,631 52.05%
JENNIFER FORNAL 3,345 47.95%
Total 6,976

CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
5 KATHY RALLINGS 3,116 55.59%
SCOTT DAVISON 2,489 44.41%
Total 5,605

CORONADO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER
Vote For 3
SCOT YOUNGBLOOD 3,278 17.96%
ALEXIA PALACIOS-PETERS 3,158 17.31%
MALACHY DENIS SANDIE 2,559 14.02%
LISA MEGLIOLI 2,524 13.83%
STEPHANIE ANDERSON 2,437 13.35%
HELEN ANDERSON-CRUZ 2,025 11.10%
MARK M. SCHEURER 1,516 8.31%
MICHAEL IVERSEN 751 4.12%
Total 18,248

CORONADO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER - SHORT TERM
RENEE CAVANAUGH 3,871 56.02%
GERRI L. MACHIN 2,580 37.34%
NICOLE BOUCHER 459 6.64%
Total 6,910

MOUNTAIN EMPIRE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
1 JEFFREY MORRISON 1,884 53.43%
EDWARD KETCHUM 1,642 46.57%
Total 3,526

OCEANSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
1 NANCY LICONA 3,507 61.14%
ALLYSON MINEAU 2,229 38.86%
Total 5,736
Printed: Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:57 AM Page 4 of 16 2022 Statewide General Election
County of San Diego
November 8, 2022
Official Results (San Diego Portion Only)

8 December 12, 2022 Item 07

OCEANSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
4 RAQUEL RIOJAS ALVAREZ 4,366 80.70%
TIGRAN GHUKASYAN 1,044 19.30%
Total 5,410

POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING

BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA B
GINGER COUVRETTE 8,432 46.88%
FRIDA BRUNZELL 5,945 33.05%
DAVE NELSON 3,609 20.07%
Total 17,986

POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING

BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA C
HEATHER R. PLOTZKE 6,120 48.02%
PATRICK BATTEN 5,921 46.46%
JASON M. BENNETT 703 5.52%
Total 12,744

POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING

BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA D
MICHELLE O'CONNOR-RATCLIFF 8,155 65.09%
JANET M. BREMSETH 4,373 34.91%
Total 12,528

RAMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING
BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO. 1
MAYA PHILLIPS 836 74.11%
DAVID WINDHAM 292 25.89%
Total 1,128

RAMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING
BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO. 5
RODGER DOHM 1,318 48.94%
NICOLE E. ROBERTSON 769 28.56%
CINDY R. PARIS 606 22.50%
Total 2,693

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT MEMBER,

BOARD OF EDUCATION DISTRICT B
SHANA HAZAN 33,444 60.29%
GODWIN HIGA 22,027 39.71%
Total 55,471

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT MEMBER,

BOARD OF EDUCATION DISTRICT C
CODY PETTERSON 34,990 56.18%
BECCA WILLIAMS 27,295 43.82%
Total 62,285

SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA C
ANDRES RAMOS MARTIN 1,800 53.36%
STEPHANIE CARROLL 1,573 46.64%
Total 3,373

SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA E
STACY CARLSON 4,317 55.75%
SHARYL CAVELLIER 3,427 44.25%
Total 7,744

VALLEY CENTER-PAUMA UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE
AREA NO. 3
JULIE STROH 919 55.80%
WENDY HEREDIA 414 25.14%
KATHLEEN HELMS 314 19.06%
Total 1,647

VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING
BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO. 2
RENA MARROCCO 3,069 38.31%
DEBBIE MORTON 3,053 38.11%
CARLA RIVERA-CRUZ 1,890 23.59%
Total 8,012

VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING
BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO. 3
MARTHA ALVARADO 4,304 51.15%
JEN TELLES 4,111 48.85%
Total 8,415

WARNER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING

BOARD MEMBER
Vote For 2
JEANNEAN ROMBAL 461 38.80%
TODD S. HIPPER 397 33.42%
PJ STONEBURNER 330 27.78%
Total 1,188

ESCONDIDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
1 BOB WELLER 2,147 75.60%
MICKEY E. JACKSON 693 24.40%
Total 2,840
Printed: Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:57 AM Page 5 of 16 2022 Statewide General Election
County of San Diego
November 8, 2022
Official Results (San Diego Portion Only)

9 December 12, 2022 Item 07

ESCONDIDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
5 JON PETERSEN 7,522 72.62%
KATHRYN MC CARTHY 2,836 27.38%
Total 10,358

FALLBROOK UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
1 COURTNEY HILBORN 1,139 53.88%
JIM DOOLEY 975 46.12%
Total 2,114

FALLBROOK UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
3 PAUL J. CHRISTENSEN 2,846 60.08%
KAREN CG WEISBERGER 1,441 30.42%
JENNIFER SEXTON 450 9.50%
Total 4,737

GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
3 GARY WOODS 8,256 55.71%
JO HART-LLOYD 4,176 28.18%
GABRIEL LAWSON 2,387 16.11%
Total 14,819

GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
4 ROBERT SHIELD 16,078 54.32%
JEANIE TYLER 13,522 45.68%
Total 29,600

GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
5 JIM KELLY 18,789 60.49%
NANCY JENNINGS 9,204 29.63%
TERRY KOHLENBERG 3,069 9.88%
Total 31,062

SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
1 RIMGA VISKANTA 8,829 57.51%
DAVID CARATTINI 6,522 42.49%
Total 15,351

SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
3 JANE LEA SMITH 8,934 57.87%
SHEILA KING 5,621 36.41%
DANIEL HALE 883 5.72%
Total 15,438

SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
5 PHAN ANDERSON 5,916 51.39%
JULIE BRONSTEIN 5,089 44.20%
GEORGIA RINGLER 508 4.41%
Total 11,513

SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA 3
ELVA LOPEZ-ZEPEDA 8,521 39.75%
REBEKKAH E. NAPUTI 4,704 21.94%
MARQUETTA BROWN 4,404 20.54%
MICHAEL BLACK 2,651 12.37%
NOEMI ABREGO 1,156 5.39%
Total 21,436

SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA 5
MARTI EMERALD 7,991 50.19%
DANTE GARCIA PAMINTUAN 7,930 49.81%
Total 15,921

ALPINE UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING

BOARD MEMBER
Vote For 3
AL GUERRA 4,556 25.80%
GLENN A. DICKIE 4,242 24.02%
ERIC WRAY 4,022 22.77%
ERIKA SIMMONS 3,105 17.58%
DARLENE COSSIO 1,735 9.82%
Total 17,660

CAJON VALLEY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
1 ANTHONY CARNEVALE 6,821 62.10%
TAMARA L. OTERO 4,163 37.90%
Total 10,984

CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER SEAT NO. 1
FRANCISCO TAMAYO 43,808 62.21%
JESSE VIGIL 26,607 37.79%
Total 70,415
Printed: Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:57 AM Page 6 of 16 2022 Statewide General Election
County of San Diego
November 8, 2022
Official Results (San Diego Portion Only)

10 December 12, 2022 Item 07

CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER SEAT NO. 3
DELIA DOMINGUEZ CERVANTES 27,613 39.62%
LESLIE RAY BUNKER 25,705 36.89%
JAQUELINE GONZALEZ 13,000 18.65%
ERIC DOUGLAS 3,370 4.84%
Total 69,688

CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER SEAT NO. 5
CESAR FERNANDEZ 29,051 41.87%
KEREN DOMINGUEZ 21,059 30.35%
ARMANDO FARIAS 12,731 18.35%
JOHN H. BORJA 6,546 9.43%
Total 69,387

DEL MAR UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING

BOARD MEMBER
Vote For 3
SCOTT WOODEN 7,187 20.23%
KATHERINE FITZPATRICK 6,604 18.59%
DOUGLAS RAFNER 6,005 16.91%
DANIELLE ROYBAL 4,821 13.57%
CINDA PECK 4,453 12.54%
WILLIAM "BILL" A. PORTER III 3,920 11.04%
MANIZA SHEIKHANI 2,125 5.98%
ESTHER R. SHEFFREY 404 1.14%
Total 35,519

ENCINITAS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING

BOARD MEMBER
Vote For 3
EMILY ANDRADE 19,412 24.71%
MARLA STRICH 17,028 21.68%
RAQUEL PFEIFER 15,928 20.28%
ANDRE JOHNSON 13,134 16.72%
JUSTIN RIED 6,752 8.59%
THOMAS R. ANGEL 6,305 8.03%
Total 78,559

ESCONDIDO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING
BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO. 2
JOAN GARDNER 6,683 55.84%
ELIZABETH SHULOK 5,285 44.16%
Total 11,968

ESCONDIDO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING
BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO. 4
ZESTY HARPER 4,923 59.80%
GEORGINE TOMASI 3,310 40.20%
Total 8,233

FALLBROOK UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE
AREA NO. 1
DIANE SEBALJ 474 50.48%
CARON S. LIEBER 465 49.52%
Total 939

FALLBROOK UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE
AREA NO. 4
STACEY MCRAE 2,266 50.10%
SUSAN JACKSON LIEBES 1,828 40.42%
KRYSTAL LEE 429 9.48%
Total 4,523

FALLBROOK UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE
AREA NO. 5
MARY MC BRIDE 2,161 54.92%
JOANN LOPEZ 1,774 45.08%
Total 3,935

LA MESA-SPRING VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
1 CAITLIN TIFFANY 5,860 65.32%
JIM LONG 3,111 34.68%
Total 8,971

LA MESA-SPRING VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
2 REBECCA MCRAE 4,791 58.19%
MYRIAM S. MOODY 3,443 41.81%
Total 8,234

LA MESA-SPRING VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO.
3 BRIANNA E. COSTON 4,459 53.01%
KYLE HERMANN 3,953 46.99%
Total 8,412
Printed: Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:57 AM Page 7 of 16 2022 Statewide General Election
County of San Diego
November 8, 2022
Official Results (San Diego Portion Only)

11 December 12, 2022 Item 07

LAKESIDE UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING

BOARD MEMBER
Vote For 3
ANDREW HAYES 8,522 25.85%
JIM BENNETT 6,985 21.19%
RON KASPER 5,624 17.06%
BONNIE LACHAPPA 4,199 12.74%
HOLLY FERRANTE 3,711 11.26%
AARON VINCENT GORDON 1,965 5.96%
MAUREEN A. CRUISE 1,964 5.96%
Total 32,970

LAKESIDE UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING

BOARD MEMBER - SHORT TERM
AUTUMN ELLENSON 8,814 69.27%
DON WHISMAN 3,910 30.73%
Total 12,724

NATIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD
MEMBER
Vote For 3
MARIA BETANCOURT-CASTAÑEDA 4,451 24.85%
ALMA SARMIENTO 3,972 22.18%
BARBARA A. AVALOS 3,899 21.77%
KIM EBLAMO GARRIDO 3,151 17.59%
AMY SPACKMAN 2,437 13.61%
Total 17,910

RANCHO SANTA FE SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING

BOARD MEMBER
Vote For 2
JEE MANGHANI 1,283 26.24%
PAUL K. SEITZ 1,237 25.30%
CRISTIAN ZARCU 1,206 24.66%
KALI KIM 1,164 23.80%
Total 4,890

SAN PASQUAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT

GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER - SHORT TERM
TRUSTEE AREA NO. 1
KAMI GOE 704 57.94%
MARJOLEIN LEGGE-BEEKMAN 511 42.06%
Total 1,215

SAN YSIDRO SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING

BOARD MEMBER
Vote For 3
RODOLFO "RUDY" LOPEZ 2,451 23.83%
ZENAIDA R P ROSARIO 2,446 23.78%
IRENE LOPEZ 2,197 21.36%
ZACCHERI BROWN 1,468 14.27%
MANUEL RAUL LOPEZ JR. 1,088 10.58%
MICHAEL A. SISNEROS 635 6.17%
Total 10,285

SANTEE SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD
MEMBER SEAT NO. 1
BARBARA L. RYAN 14,727 75.54%
RON BURNER 4,769 24.46%
Total 19,496

SANTEE SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD
MEMBER SEAT NO. 5
KEN FOX 9,487 48.58%
TRACIE THILL 7,169 36.71%
JOSEPH DOLIN 2,873 14.71%
Total 19,529

SOLANA BEACH SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING
BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO. 1
DEBRA H. SCHADE 2,632 80.61%
AUBREY L. HUFF 633 19.39%
Total 3,265

SOLANA BEACH SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING
BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO. 4
GAYLIN ALLBAUGH 1,366 53.19%
CHUCK RINGER 1,202 46.81%
Total 2,568

SOUTH BAY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING
BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO. 1
KELLY M. LEIKER 2,293 68.02%
MIGUEL DEL VILLAR 1,078 31.98%
Total 3,371

SOUTH BAY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING
BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO. 2
JOSE A. LOPEZ EGUINO 1,601 68.54%
JOHN D. WATERS 735 31.46%
Total 2,336

SOUTH BAY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING
BOARD MEMBER TRUSTEE AREA NO. 4
MELANIE ELLSWORTH 1,447 70.65%
LINCOLN PICKARD 601 29.35%
Total 2,048
MEMBER, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT NO.
4 NATHAN FLETCHER 118,114 64.64%
AMY REICHERT 64,605 35.36%
Total 182,719
Printed: Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:57 AM Page 8 of 16 2022 Statewide General Election
County of San Diego
November 8, 2022
Official Results (San Diego Portion Only)

12 December 12, 2022 Item 07
MEMBER, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT NO.
5 JIM DESMOND 110,529 60.11%
TIFFANY BOYD-HODGSON 73,353 39.89%
Total 183,882

ASSESSOR/RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK
JORDAN MARKS 452,353 51.51%
BARBARA BRY 425,913 48.49%
Total 878,266

DISTRICT ATTORNEY
SUMMER STEPHAN 731,009 100.00%
Total 731,009

SHERIFF
KELLY ANNE MARTINEZ 525,111 58.59%
JOHN HEMMERLING 371,104 41.41%
Total 896,215

TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR
DAN MCALLISTER 657,962 74.45%
GREG HODOSEVICH 225,815 25.55%
Total 883,777

CITY OF CARLSBAD MAYOR
KEITH BLACKBURN 33,445 68.26%
MICHAEL CURTIN 15,550 31.74%
Total 48,995

CITY OF CARLSBAD MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 1
MELANIE BURKHOLDER 4,423 39.02%
SAM WARD 4,066 35.87%
DEEDEE TREJO-ROWLETT 1,742 15.37%
ANTHONY BONA 495 4.37%
CORY GEIGERT 362 3.19%
ALLEN J. MANZANO 246 2.17%
Total 11,334

CITY OF CARLSBAD MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 3
PRIYA BHAT-PATEL 7,133 55.03%
RAY PEARSON 5,829 44.97%
Total 12,962

CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY CLERK
SHERRY FREISINGER 35,600 100.00%
Total 35,600

CITY OF CARLSBAD TREASURER
CRAIG J. LINDHOLM 28,031 64.46%
LANCE SCHULTE 15,454 35.54%
Total 43,485

CITY OF CHULA VISTA MAYOR
JOHN MC CANN 33,992 52.08%
AMMAR CAMPA-NAJJAR 31,280 47.92%
Total 65,272

CITY OF CHULA VISTA MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 1
CAROLINA CHAVEZ 10,275 53.52%
MARCO CONTRERAS 8,925 46.48%
Total 19,200

CITY OF CHULA VISTA MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 2
JOSE PRECIADO 7,888 50.42%
STEVE STENBERG 7,757 49.58%
Total 15,645

CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY ATTORNEY
SIMON SILVA 30,619 50.62%
DAN SMITH 29,863 49.38%
Total 60,482

CITY OF CORONADO MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
Vote For 2
JOHN DUNCAN 3,999 34.37%
CARRIE ANNE DOWNEY 3,423 29.42%
MARVIN HEINZE 3,064 26.33%
PILIALOHA ESTALL 1,150 9.88%
Total 11,636

CITY OF DEL MAR MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
Vote For 2
TERRY GAASTERLAND 1,606 44.35%
DWIGHT WORDEN 1,038 28.67%
STEVE QUIRK 977 26.98%
Total 3,621

CITY OF EL CAJON MAYOR
BILL WELLS 14,649 70.75%
ARNIE M. LEVINE 6,056 29.25%
Total 20,705
Printed: Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:57 AM Page 9 of 16 2022 Statewide General Election
County of San Diego
November 8, 2022
Official Results (San Diego Portion Only)

13 December 12, 2022 Item 07

CITY OF EL CAJON MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 1
GARY KENDRICK 5,864 100.00%
Total 5,864

CITY OF ENCINITAS MAYOR
TONY KRANZ 13,369 47.08%
CINDY CREMONA 7,246 25.52%
JEFF MORRIS 6,969 24.54%
MICHAEL "MYEKAH" BLOBE 811 2.86%
Total 28,395

CITY OF ENCINITAS MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 3
JOY LYNDES 3,646 51.42%
JULIE THUNDER 3,445 48.58%
Total 7,091

CITY OF ENCINITAS MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 4
BRUCE EHLERS 3,494 46.57%
PAMELA "PAM" REDELA 2,548 33.96%
DAN VAUGHN 941 12.54%
STACIE DAVIS 520 6.93%
Total 7,503

CITY OF ESCONDIDO MAYOR
DANE M. WHITE 18,317 51.60%
PAUL "MAC" MCNAMARA 17,183 48.40%
Total 35,500

CITY OF ESCONDIDO MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 1
CONSUELO MARTINEZ 3,139 67.36%
MIKE JOHNSON-PALOMARES 1,521 32.64%
Total 4,660

CITY OF ESCONDIDO MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 2
JOE GARCIA 6,426 51.02%
JEFF GRIFFITH 6,169 48.98%
Total 12,595

CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH MAYOR
PALOMA AGUIRRE 2,688 45.38%
SHIRLEY NAKAWATASE 2,341 39.52%
JOHN "JACK" FISHER 795 13.42%
VANCE E. LOCKE 99 1.67%
Total 5,923

CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 1
CAROL SEABURY 548 53.41%
JEN CRUMLEY 478 46.59%
Total 1,026

CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 3
MITCHELL "MITCH" MCKAY 1,127 57.88%
ANNA WEBB 820 42.12%
Total 1,947

CITY OF LA MESA MAYOR
MARK ARAPOSTATHIS 11,386 55.88%
KRISTINE C. ALESSIO 8,989 44.12%
Total 20,375

CITY OF LA MESA MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
Vote For 2
PATRICIA N. DILLARD 8,600 23.92%
LAURA LOTHIAN 8,414 23.40%
MEJGAN AFSHAN 8,403 23.37%
TONY ORLANDO 6,598 18.35%
KATHLEEN BRAND 3,938 10.95%
Total 35,953

CITY OF LA MESA TREASURER
MATT STRABONE 10,185 54.16%
WILLIAM "BILL" EXETER 8,622 45.84%
Total 18,807

CITY OF LEMON GROVE MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
Vote For 2
ALYSSON SNOW 2,858 25.69%
JENNIFER L. MENDOZA 2,836 25.49%
STEPHANIE KLEIN 1,909 17.16%
JESSICA "JESSYKA" HEREDIA 1,781 16.01%
BLANCA LOPEZ BROWN 1,741 15.65%
Total 11,125

CITY OF NATIONAL CITY MAYOR
RON MORRISON 3,383 36.78%
JOSE RODRIGUEZ 3,315 36.04%
ALEJANDRA SOTELO-SOLIS 2,499 27.17%
Total 9,197

CITY OF NATIONAL CITY MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 1
LUZ MOLINA 1,597 100.00%
Total 1,597
Printed: Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:57 AM Page 10 of 16 2022 Statewide General Election
County of San Diego
November 8, 2022
Official Results (San Diego Portion Only)

14 December 12, 2022 Item 07

CITY OF NATIONAL CITY MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 3
DITAS YAMANE 1,507 58.48%
MARISSA ACIERTO 1,070 41.52%
Total 2,577

CITY OF OCEANSIDE MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 1
ERIC JOYCE 4,780 40.44%
KORI JENSEN 4,005 33.88%
DARIN SELNICK 2,174 18.39%
ALVIN L. MCGEE 432 3.65%
DAVID TURGEON 430 3.64%
Total 11,821

CITY OF OCEANSIDE MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 2
RICHARD ROBINSON 6,316 53.46%
DANIEL DOMINGUEZ 5,499 46.54%
Total 11,815

CITY OF POWAY MAYOR
STEVE VAUS 10,822 55.65%
DELTA ESPARZA 6,183 31.80%
YURI BOHLEN 1,611 8.28%
EMEKA IBEKWE 560 2.88%
BHAVANA KANSAL 269 1.38%
Total 19,445

CITY OF POWAY MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT
NO. 1
BRIAN PEPIN 2,520 54.39%
HIRAM SOTO 2,113 45.61%
Total 4,633

CITY OF POWAY MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT
NO. 3
PETER DE HOFF 2,143 44.14%
KEVIN JUZA 1,763 36.31%
TONY RUSSO 949 19.55%
Total 4,855

CITY OF SAN DIEGO MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 2
JENNIFER CAMPBELL 28,379 56.49%
LINDA LUKACS 21,854 43.51%
Total 50,233

CITY OF SAN DIEGO MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 4
MONICA MONTGOMERY STEPPE 17,878 68.79%
GLORIA EVANGELISTA 8,112 31.21%
Total 25,990

CITY OF SAN DIEGO MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 6
KENT LEE 22,040 60.52%
TOMMY HOUGH 14,380 39.48%
Total 36,420

CITY OF SAN DIEGO MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 8
VIVIAN MORENO 13,194 63.30%
ANTONIO MARTINEZ 7,651 36.70%
Total 20,845

CITY OF SAN MARCOS MAYOR
REBECCA D. JONES 17,644 64.20%
RANDY WALTON 9,840 35.80%
Total 27,484

CITY OF SAN MARCOS MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 1
MARIA NUÑEZ 2,416 100.00%
Total 2,416

CITY OF SAN MARCOS MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 2
MIKE SANNELLA 3,652 44.81%
JAY PETREK 2,954 36.25%
LIONEL A. SAULSBERRY 846 10.38%
AMBREEN AHMED 698 8.56%
Total 8,150

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 2
KRISTI BECKER 869 69.97%
KRISTIN BRINNER 373 30.03%
Total 1,242

CITY OF SOLANA BEACH MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT NO. 4
JILL MACDONALD 1,342 100.00%
Total 1,342

CITY OF VISTA MAYOR
JOHN FRANKLIN 13,031 51.90%
CIPRIANO VARGAS 12,076 48.10%
Total 25,107
Printed: Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:57 AM Page 11 of 16 2022 Statewide General Election
County of San Diego
November 8, 2022
Official Results (San Diego Portion Only)

15 December 12, 2022 Item 07

CITY OF VISTA MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT
NO. 1
CORINNA CONTRERAS 2,679 100.00%
Total 2,679

CITY OF VISTA MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT
NO. 4
DAN O'DONNELL 4,303 50.17%
ARMEN KURDIAN 4,273 49.83%
Total 8,576

ALPINE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT MEMBER,

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Vote For 3
BARON T. "BARRY" WILLIS 5,244 33.84%
BILL F. PASKLE 3,271 21.11%
CHASE CROMWELL 3,254 21.00%
THOMAS A. GIRARD 2,360 15.23%
GARETT W. HOSTETLER 1,369 8.83%
Total 15,498

CANEBRAKE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT MEMBER,

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Vote For 3
DARYL R. HOLMES 10 29.41%
GUNNAR RAMSTRUM 9 26.47%
ELLYN HAE 9 26.47%
JERRY BUCHEIT 6 17.65%
Total 34

FALLBROOK COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA

MEMBER, PLANNING GROUP
Vote For 7
EILEEN DELANEY 8,883 10.89%
STEVE BROWN 7,293 8.94%
J.J. NEESE 6,940 8.51%
JENIENE L. DOMERCQ 6,711 8.23%
SCOTT SPENCER 6,112 7.49%
KELLY E. HANSEN 6,073 7.45%
DEBBIE WILLIAMS 5,904 7.24%
MICHELE MCCAFFERY 5,777 7.08%
PETER W. WILSON 5,741 7.04%
KARI ANN HOYER 5,070 6.22%
TAUNA A. RODARTE 4,864 5.96%
MARK MERVICH 4,563 5.59%
VICTORIA STOVER 3,612 4.43%
LISA LYNN GEFFENEY 2,762 3.39%
KRYSTAL LEE 1,263 1.55%
Total 81,568

FALLBROOK REGIONAL HEALTH DISTRICT
MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS ZONE NO. 1
JENNIFER JEFFRIES 1,636 53.89%
SYDNEY LAY 1,400 46.11%
Total 3,036

FALLBROOK REGIONAL HEALTH DISTRICT
MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS ZONE NO. 3
WILLIAM R. LEACH 1,687 53.64%
MARGIE MOSAVI 1,458 46.36%
Total 3,145

FALLBROOK REGIONAL HEALTH DISTRICT
MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS ZONE NO. 5
TERRY BROWN 2,942 62.20%
HOWARD SALMON 1,788 37.80%
Total 4,730

HELIX WATER DISTRICT MEMBER, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 2
ANDREA BETH DAMSKY 7,227 56.84%
JORDAN LEHR 5,487 43.16%
Total 12,714

JACUMBA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT

MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Vote For 3
KATRINA WESTLEY 91 30.33%
SARAH MISQUEZ 89 29.67%
DEBRA YU 86 28.67%
JOHN HOGUE 34 11.33%
Total 300

LAKESIDE COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA MEMBER,

PLANNING GROUP
Vote For 7
ROBERT F.J. RUTLEDGE 12,039 15.02%
OLEKSANDRA REVA 9,691 12.09%
STEVE ROBAK 9,006 11.24%
SPENCER HANCOCK 6,870 8.57%
REY E. LYYJOKI 6,865 8.57%
KRISTEN L. EVERHART 5,657 7.06%
MORGAN MAGILL 5,465 6.82%
RICHARD R. ABRAHAM 5,170 6.45%
JONATHAN SILVA 4,871 6.08%
DANIEL L. MOODY 4,402 5.49%
MARK A. LANDRY 3,710 4.63%
JOSEF KUFA 3,264 4.07%
TERESA L. LEADER-ANDERSON 3,117 3.89%
Total 80,127
Printed: Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:57 AM Page 12 of 16 2022 Statewide General Election
County of San Diego
November 8, 2022
Official Results (San Diego Portion Only)

16 December 12, 2022 Item 07

LAKESIDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT MEMBER,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 5
TIMOTHY E. ROBLES 2,469 68.19%
ROBERT PETERSON 1,152 31.81%
Total 3,621

OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 1
MARCO SAN ANTONIO 3,877 71.19%
ROBERT MAX KEPHART II 1,569 28.81%
Total 5,446

OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 4
MATTHEW R. HAHN 2,308 63.42%
ALBERT BATES 532 14.62%
CRAIG FORMAN 404 11.10%
JAMES KEYES 395 10.85%
Total 3,639

OTAY WATER DISTRICT MEMBER, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 3
GARY D. CROUCHER 6,316 56.10%
HECTOR RAUL GASTELUM 4,942 43.90%
Total 11,258

PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 3
BILL POMMERING 3,459 67.74%
JOSE ANTONIO OROSCO 1,647 32.26%
Total 5,106

PALOMAR HEALTH DISTRICT MEMBER, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 1
MICHAEL "MIKE" J. PACHECO 12,873 52.29%
ROBIN JOY MAXSON 11,747 47.71%
Total 24,620

PALOMAR HEALTH DISTRICT MEMBER, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 3
LAURIE EDWARDS-TATE 19,793 81.79%
ROD JONES 4,407 18.21%
Total 24,200

PALOMAR HEALTH DISTRICT MEMBER, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 5
JOHN CLARK 16,085 60.22%
ALEJANDRO PAZ 6,243 23.37%
HANS CHRISTIAN SISON 4,381 16.40%
Total 26,709

PALOMAR HEALTH DISTRICT MEMBER, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 7
LINDA GREER 14,868 73.50%
CAROL WARE 5,360 26.50%
Total 20,228

PAUMA VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT

MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Vote For 3
RICHARD COLLINS 241 29.90%
BETH POTALIVO 239 29.65%
JODIE MICHELLE LAWSTON 213 26.43%
MICHAEL MARTELLO 113 14.02%
Total 806

RAINBOW COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA MEMBER,

PLANNING GROUP
Vote For 5
MICHELE D. SHEEHAN 307 16.22%
LYNNE T. MALINOWSKI 297 15.69%
FREDERICK L. RASP 295 15.58%
DOUGLAS W. GASTELUM 284 15.00%
MARTIN A. KURLAND 275 14.53%
GUY M. MATURO 237 12.52%
ERIN MATURO 198 10.46%
Total 1,893

RAINBOW MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT MEMBER,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 3
MIGUEL "MIG" GASCA 1,428 62.82%
GREG IRVINE 845 37.18%
Total 2,273

RAINBOW MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT MEMBER,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 4
PATRICIA A. TOWNSEND-SMITH 943 54.95%
BILL STEWART 773 45.05%
Total 1,716
Printed: Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:57 AM Page 13 of 16 2022 Statewide General Election
County of San Diego
November 8, 2022
Official Results (San Diego Portion Only)

17 December 12, 2022 Item 07

RAMONA COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA MEMBER,

PLANNING GROUP
Vote For 7
HOLLY HAMILTON BLEAKLEY 6,221 11.10%
JANELLE CLARK 5,754 10.26%
DAWN PERFECT 5,450 9.72%
JONAS DYER 4,669 8.33%
KRISTI MANSOLF 4,539 8.10%
ROBIN JOY MAXSON 4,484 8.00%
LAUREN ELYSE SCHULTE 4,108 7.33%
JAMES "JIM" COOPER 4,044 7.21%
SCOTT ENSIGN 3,753 6.69%
LORI PATENAUDE 3,603 6.43%
LYNN HOPEWELL 3,552 6.34%
BRANDON POWELL 3,328 5.94%
JOEY SPICUZZA 2,563 4.57%
Total 56,068

RAMONA MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT MEMBER,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 2
JAMES HICKLE 1,569 62.16%
MIKE DUDAS 955 37.84%
Total 2,524

RAMONA MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT MEMBER,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 4
JACOB R. ZORIA 724 50.45%
JOE STUPAR 711 49.55%
Total 1,435

RINCON DEL DIABLO MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 1
GREG QUIST 4,119 63.39%
DAN SUNDQUIST 2,379 36.61%
Total 6,498

RINCON DEL DIABLO MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 3
JAMES B. MURTLAND 3,739 51.91%
PAUL FAUCHER 2,299 31.92%
SUSAN REVELES 1,165 16.17%
Total 7,203

RINCON DEL DIABLO MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 4
RONALD E. NAVES JR 5,457 66.79%
ELLIOTT JUNG 2,713 33.21%
Total 8,170

SPRING VALLEY COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA

MEMBER, PLANNING GROUP
Vote For 7
VICTORIA ALEXANDRIA ABRENICA 8,015 13.92%
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL PIERCE 7,975 13.85%
LORA LOWES 6,534 11.35%
JOHN EUGENIO 6,374 11.07%
CHRIS PEARSON 6,302 10.95%
HEAVEN MAJESTA MORGAN 6,202 10.77%
J. SCOTT SHAFFER 5,691 9.88%
ROBERT EBLE 5,684 9.87%
ANGELICA MARIA WALLACE 4,798 8.33%
Total 57,575

TRI-CITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT MEMBER, BOARD
OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 6
TRACY M. YOUNGER 12,100 65.89%
RICHARD TRUCHINSKI 6,264 34.11%
Total 18,364

VALLECITOS WATER DISTRICT MEMBER, BOARD
OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 2
JIM HERNANDEZ 2,152 51.56%
PAUL MENDOZA 2,022 48.44%
Total 4,174

VALLECITOS WATER DISTRICT MEMBER, BOARD
OF DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 3
CRAIG ELITHARP 3,927 81.27%
NESTOR DAVID MENDEZ 905 18.73%
Total 4,832

VISTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT MEMBER, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS DIVISION NO. 3
PETER KUCHINSKY II 3,572 52.94%
RICHARD ALVAREZ 3,175 47.06%
Total 6,747
PROP 1 - REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM
YES 648,166 64.34%
NO 359,290 35.66%
Total 1,007,456
PROP 26 - ALLOWS NEW TYPES OF GAMBLING
NO 612,647 61.68%
YES 380,570 38.32%
Total 993,217
Printed: Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:57 AM Page 14 of 16 2022 Statewide General Election
County of San Diego
November 8, 2022
Official Results (San Diego Portion Only)

18 December 12, 2022 Item 07
PROP 27 - ALLOWS ONLINE AND MOBILE SPORTS

WAGERING
NO 823,526 81.73%
YES 184,102 18.27%
Total 1,007,628
PROP 28 - PROVIDES ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR
ARTS & MUSIC ED.

YES 617,951 61.49%
NO 386,977 38.51%
Total 1,004,928
PROP 29 - REQ ON-SITE LICENSED MED KIDNEY

DIALYSIS CLINICS
NO 693,460 69.78%
YES 300,307 30.22%
Total 993,767
PROP 30 - FUNDING PROG. REDUCE AIR

POLLUTION/PREVENT WILDFIRES
NO 556,065 55.27%
YES 449,965 44.73%
Total 1,006,030
PROP 31 - REF 2020 LAW RETAIL SALE OF

FLAVORED TABACCO PRODUCTS
YES 604,265 60.35%
NO 396,976 39.65%
Total 1,001,241

COUNTY - MEASURE A - CANNABIS BUSINESS TAX
YES 563,512 57.45%
NO 417,402 42.55%
Total 980,914
CITY SAN DIEGO - MEASURE B ±SOLID WASTE

MANAGEMENT
YES 203,223 50.48%
NO 199,384 49.52%
Total 402,607
CITY SAN DIEGO - MEASURE C ±30-FOOT HEIGHT
LIMIT
YES 204,238 51.14%
NO 195,156 48.86%
Total 399,394
CITY SAN DIEGO - MEASURE D ±CONTRACTING

UPDATES
YES 221,282 57.77%
NO 161,766 42.23%
Total 383,048
CITY SAN DIEGO - MEASURE H ±AMEND ARTICLE
V, SEC. 55
YES 260,432 68.67%
NO 118,799 31.33%
Total 379,231
CITY CARLSBAD - MEASURE J ±MONROE ST. POOL

RENOVATION
YES 26,576 51.24%
NO 25,291 48.76%
Total 51,867
CITY CHULA VISTA - MEASURE K ±MODIFY CITY

CHARTER
YES 39,875 63.57%
NO 22,850 36.43%
Total 62,725
CITY EL CAJON - MEASURE P ±ADOPT ONE-CENT

SALES TAX
NO 12,806 60.67%
YES 8,302 39.33%
Total 21,108
CITY ENCINITAS - MEASURE L ±CANNABIS

BUSINESS TAX
YES 19,519 65.11%
NO 10,461 34.89%
Total 29,980
CITY ESCONDIDO - MEASURE E ±CENT SALES
TAX
NO 18,602 50.61%
YES 18,155 49.39%
Total 36,757
CITY ESCONDIDO - MEASURE F ±TERM LIMITS
YES 29,730 82.67%
NO 6,232 17.33%
Total 35,962
Printed: Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:57 AM Page 15 of 16 2022 Statewide General Election
County of San Diego
November 8, 2022
Official Results (San Diego Portion Only)

19 December 12, 2022 Item 07
CITY ESCONDIDO - MEASURE G ±REDUCE CITY

TREASURER COMPENSATION
YES 29,550 83.14%
NO 5,992 16.86%
Total 35,542
CITY IMPERIAL BEACH - MEASURE R ±QUALITY OF

LIFE MEASURE
YES 3,904 67.36%
NO 1,892 32.64%
Total 5,796
CITY NATIONAL CITY - MEASURE M ±APPOINT CITY
CLERK
YES 4,789 55.01%
NO 3,916 44.99%
Total 8,705
CITY NATIONAL CITY - MEASURE N ±APPOINT CITY

TREASURER
YES 4,573 52.56%
NO 4,128 47.44%
Total 8,701
CITY SOLANA BEACH - MEASURE S ±
ESTABLISHING A 1 CENT SALES TAX
YES 4,363 66.70%
NO 2,178 33.30%
Total 6,541

LEMON GROVE ELEM SCHL - MEASURE Q - BOND
(REQ. 55 Percent)
YES 5,983 69.38%
NO 2,640 30.62%
Total 8,623
LOWER SWEETWATER FIRE PROT MEASURE T ±

INCREASE BD MEMBERS
YES 223 63.90%
NO 126 36.10%
Total 349

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHL MEASURE U - BOND
(REQ. 55 Percent)
YES 199,223 65.33%
NO 105,712 34.67%
Total 304,935
Printed: Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:57 AM Page 16 of 16 2022 Statewide General Election
County of San Diego
November 8, 2022
Official Results (San Diego Portion Only)

20 December 12, 2022 Item 07
1 CITY OF DEL MAR MEMBER, CITY
COUNCIL Registered Voters
Voters Cast
Turnout (%)
WORDEN
DWIGHT

STEVE QUIRK
TERRY

GAASTERLAND
0922-418200-DEL MAR Vote Centers 1552 92 5.93 % 35 55 56 0922-418200-DEL MAR Mail 1552 1035 66.69 % 396 478 715
0922-418200-DEL MAR Total 1552 1127 72.62 % 431 533 771 0923-418230-DEL MAR Vote Centers 18 1 5.56 % 1 1
0923-418230-DEL MAR Mail 18 11 61.11 % 3 8 7
0923-418230-DEL MAR Total 18 12 66.67 % 3 9 8
0924-418400-DEL MAR Vote Centers 1675 86 5.13 % 27 45 54 0924-418400-DEL MAR Mail 1675 1146 68.42 % 577 390 773
0924-418400-DEL MAR Total 1675 1232 73.55 % 604 435 827 8334-999334-VBM-AV Vote Centers 0 0
8334-999334-VBM-AV Mail 0 0
8334-999334-VBM-AV Total 0 0
8335-999335-VBM-AV Vote Centers 0 0
8335-999335-VBM-AV Mail 0 0
8335-999335-VBM-AV Total 0 0
Total - Vote Centers 3245 179 5.52 % 62 101 111
Total - Mail 3245 2192 67.55 % 976 876 1495
Contest Total 3245 2371 73.07 % 1038 977 1606
Printed: Thursday, December 8, 2022 5:13 PM Data Refreshed: Thursday, December 8, 2022 5:13 PM Page 4 of 4 County of San Diego
2022 Statewide General Election
Precinct Canvass - Del Mar
November 8, 2022
21 December 12, 2022 Item 07

Del Mar City CouncilDecember 12, 2022

Del Mar City Council
December 12, 2022