Del Mar City Council
April 15, 2024

FISCAL IMPACT:

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

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

NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

San Dieguito Drive Development is listed as a Tier 2 City Council priority for Fiscal Years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Resolution Providing Intention to Levy Assessments for Fiscal Year 2024- 25, Preliminarily Approving the Engineer’s Report, and Providing for the Notice of Hearing, and the Mailing of Assessment Ballots for the of San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Attachment B – Resolution Adopting Procedures for the Proposition 218 Assessment Ballot Proceedings for the San Dieguito Drive Improvement District Attachment C – Informal Resident Survey
Attachment D – Resident Q&A 3-1-2024
Attachment E – Resident Q&A 4-4-2024
Attachment F – San Dieguito Drive Final Design
Attachment G – Engineer’s Report for the San Dieguito Drive Improvement District Attachment H San Dieguito Drive Construction Cost Estimate Attachment I Construction Estimate Credit
8 April 15, 2024 Item 11
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL

MAR, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING INTENTION TO LEVY
ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-25, PRELIMINARILY

APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT, AND PROVIDING

FOR NOTICE OF HEARING, AND THE MAILING OF

ASSESSMENT BALLOTS FOR THE SAN DIEGUITO DRIVE

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2024, the City Council of the City of Del Mar designated SCI Consulting Group, and more particularly John W. Bliss, as a registered professional engineer in the State of California, as the Engineer of Record and as the Engineer of Work and ordered preparation of an Engineer’s Report for the San Dieguito Drive Improvement District (the “Improvement District”); and WHEREAS, San Dieguito Drive (“the road”) is a private road with public access in the City of Del Mar (”City”) on Book 299, page 200 of the County of San Diego Assessor Parcel Maps; and
WHEREAS, residents living along Oribia Road use San Dieguito Drive to access their homes; and
WHEREAS, San Dieguito Drive and Oribia Road are currently not part of the public street system or maintained by the City; and
WHEREAS, San Dieguito Drive is approximately 17 to 20 linear feet wide and includes adjacent gravel/dirt shoulder areas that are currently used for private and public parking; and
WHEREAS, the asphalt along San Dieguito Drive is in a highly deteriorated condition and the Street needs significant repair; and
WHEREAS, San Dieguito Drive is classified as a Hillside Residential Street, which is the minimal standard available for residential streets; and WHEREAS, San Dieguito Drive also serves the public interest by providing coastal access to the nearby lagoon and allows for fire apparatus access in the event of wildland fires to the adjacent hillsides; and
WHEREAS, there are both public and private benefits associated with the repair and replacement of the asphalt along San Dieguito Drive; and WHEREAS, over several decades the residents of both San Dieguito Drive and Oribia Road have requested the City to improve the private roads that provide public access and accept San Dieguito Drive into the City’s roadway system; and ATTACHMENT A 9 April 15, 2024 Item 11
Resolution No. 2024-XX

WHEREAS, in response to citizen requests and the public’s use of San Dieguito Drive for fire suppression access and the additional public access to the nearby coastal lagoon, the City proposes to implement a Proposition 218-compliant, balloted benefit assessment district; and
WHEREAS, the City retained SCI Consulting Group to prepare an Engineer’s Report to determine the relative special benefits in portion to the general benefits of improving San Dieguito Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Engineer’s Report is intended to calculate the assessments for each benefitted parcels (privately owned land) located in the proposed Assessment District in direct proportion to the general benefits conferred to the public from the improvements intended for San Dieguito Drive; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2024, a Draft Engineers Report was provided to the residents living along San Dieguito Drive and Oribia Road and to the general public on the City’s website; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Engineer’s Report generally described the repairs as removing the existing 17 to 20 feet of deteriorated road, installing a new road section with 16 feet of asphalt with aggregate base and 3.5-foot concrete rolled curbs, providing a wider roadway for 20 feet of drivable surface. improving drainage by installing a standard centerline crown, concrete rolled curbs, storm drain laterals, and storm drain inlet, installing two modular wetlands, installing a retaining wall at the southwest corner of San Dieguito Drive and Racetrack View Drive to widen the roadway, and removal and replacement of poles and undergrounding of electrical and communications; and WHEREAS, the improvements are estimated to be $1,269,039; and WHEREAS, the Draft Engineer’s Report calculated the net amount to be assessed upon lands by a formula that fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable parcels in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received by each such parcels from the improvements in proportion to the general benefits conferred to the public; and
WHEREAS, the Engineer’s Report concluded that the general benefits conferred upon the public for wildland fire suppression access, improved coastal access, and general beautification amounts to 54% of the estimated costs of the improvements; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 218 was adopted on November 6, 1996, adding Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the California Constitution which allows for the establishment of Assessment Districts whereby such assessments are not considered a tax; and WHEREAS, the Engineer’s Report divided the special benefits into two benefit ATTACHMENT A 10 April 15, 2024 Item 11
Resolution No. 2024-XX

zone locations, Zone A includes all homes along San Dieguito Drive while Zone B includes all homes along Oribia Road; and
WHEREAS, the special benefits include improved road access to the homes in both Zones A and B, by way of reducing damage to automobiles from colliding into potholes, improved safety of the residents during times of evacuations, improved beautification of their adjoining roads, improved drainage, and the likelihood of receiving higher resale values; and
WHEREAS, under Articles XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution impose certain procedural and substantive requirements relating to the imposition of assessments; and
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar believes it to be in the best interest of the City, the general public, and the private property owners to confirm and memorialize the City’s procedures and guidelines regarding implementation of the assessment provisions of Proposition 218 and other pertinent statutes relating to assessments; and WHEREAS, sufficient funds are not available to improve San Dieguito Drive to bring it up to County road standards; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 6 of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, authorizes formation of an assessment district, and imposition of assessments to finance construction and improvement of roadways; and WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar desires to initiate the proceedings for the formation of the San Dieguito Road Improvement District in conformity with Government Code Section 53753 and Article XIIID of the California Constitution; and to improve San Dieguito Drive within the proposed Improvement District; and WHEREAS, an Engineer’s Report (the: “Report”) has been prepared by the Engineer of Record who is properly licensed in the State of California and is an employee of SCI Consulting Group (the “Engineer of Work”) and submitted to the City Council (the “Council”), in which a new assessment is proposed to fund the cost to improve San Dieguito Drive within the proposed Improvement District boundaries.

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

1. The above recitals are true and correct and are fully incorporated herein; and

2. Reference to Initiation. the Engineer of Record, the “Engineer’s of Work,” has prepared an Engineer’s Report in accordance with Article XIIID of the California Constitution and Government Code section 53750, 54710 et seq.

The Report has been made, filed with the City Council and duly considered by the Council and is hereby deemed sufficient and preliminarily approved.

ATTACHMENT A 11 April 15, 2024 Item 11
Resolution No. 2024-XX

The Report shall be the foundational document that is fully compliant with State law and the California Constitution as the official “Engineer's Report” to be used in all subsequent proceedings under and pursuant to the foregoing resolution; and

3. Description of the Services. Within the Improvement District, the proposed Services will include improvement of San Dieguito Drive as described in the Engineer’s Report; and

4. Reference to Engineer’s Report. Reference is hereby made to the Report for a full and detailed description of the Improvements, the boundaries of the Improvement District and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the Improvement District; and

5. Report of the Engineer of Work. The Report, which is available for public review upon request, is hereby incorporated by reference. This Engineer’s Report generally includes the following:

A. A description of the Improvements to be funded with assessment proceeds;
B. An estimate of the annual cost of such Improvements; C. A description of the assessable parcels with homes located on the land within the District and proposed to be subject to the new assessment;
D. A description of the special benefits conferred to the private interest of the assessed properties proportional to the general benefits; E. A description of the boundaries, noted by zones, of the proposed Improvement Assessment District;
F. The proposed assessments in relationship to the particular properties and the estimated costs of the Improvements; and

6. Description of Improvement District. The Improvement District consists of the parcels shown on the Assessment Diagram of the Improvement District on file with the City Clerk and included herein by reference. As proposed, the Improvement District will include two special benefit zones: Zone A and Zone B, with Special Assessment Zone A representing the residents along San Dieguito Drive and Zone B being the residents along Oribia Road; and

7. Proposed Assessment Rate. It is by this action the intention of this City Council of the City of Del Mar to levy and collect assessments within the Improvement District. The estimated fiscal year 2024-25 cost of providing the ATTACHMENT A 12 April 15, 2024 Item 11
Resolution No. 2024-XX

Improvements to be funded by this proposed assessment is $19,040 per year for 20 years. This cost results in a maximum proposed annual assessment rate per single-family equivalent benefit unit of EIGHT HUNDRED AND FORTY-SIX DOLLARS AND TWENTY-TWO CENTS ($846.22) for Zone A and FOUR HUNDRED AND TWENTY-THREE DOLLARS AND ELEVEN
CENTS ($423.11) for Zone B. If approved, these rates will not be increased in future years; and

8. Public Hearing. A duly noticed public hearing in conformity with the California Constitution and California Government Code Section 53753 et seq. concerning the proposed establishment of the Assessment District and the amount of assessments proposed shall be held before the City Council of the City of Del Mar on Monday, June 17, 2024, at the hour of 4:30 pm and for the purpose of this Council’s determination of whether it is in the public interest, convenience and necessity to require the Improvements and this Council’s final action upon the Report and the assessments therein; and

9. Notice and Ballot. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause the Notice of the hearing ordered under Section 53753 of the Government Code and Article XIIID, Section 4 of the California Constitution by mailing, postage prepaid, in the United States mail, and such Notice shall be deemed to have been given when so deposited in the mail. The envelope or cover of the mailing shall include the name of the Improvement District and include on the face of the envelope in 16-point bold type: “OFFICIAL BALLOT ENCLOSED.” The mailed Notice shall be given by such mailing by name to those persons whose names and addresses appear on the current equalized secured property tax assessment roll of the County of San Diego, or in the case of any public entity, the representative of such public entity at the address thereof known to the City Clerk. The Notice shall include, but not be limited to, the total amount of assessment proposed to be levied in the Improvement District for fiscal year 2024-25, the assessment proposed for the owner's particular parcel(s) and the duration thereof and the reason for the assessment. Each Notice shall also contain the proposed assessment and the basis upon which the amount of the assessment was calculated.

Each Notice shall also contain an assessment ballot, a summary of the procedures applicable to the completion, return and tabulation of assessment ballots, the date, time, and location of the public hearing and a statement that the existence of a majority protest will result in the assessment not being imposed. The Notice herein provided shall be mailed not less than 45 days before the date of the public hearing.

10. Protest. A majority protest exists if the assessment ballots submitted, and not withdrawn, in opposition to the proposed assessment exceed the assessment ballots submitted, and not withdrawn, in its favor, weighting those assessment ballots by the amount of the proposed assessment to be imposed upon the identified parcel for which each assessment ballot was submitted.

ATTACHMENT A 13 April 15, 2024 Item 11
Resolution No. 2024-XX

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at the Regular Meeting held this 15th day of April, 2024. ___________________________
Dave Druker, 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. 2024-XX, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 15th day of April, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

RECUSE:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
ATTACHMENT A 14 April 15, 2024 Item 11
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL

MAR, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING PROCEDURES FOR THE
PROPOSITION 218 ASSESSMENT BALLOT PROCEEDINGS

FOR THE SAN DIEGUITO DRIVE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, San Dieguito Drive (“the road”) is a private road with public access in the City of Del Mar (“City”) on Book 299, page 200 of the County of San Diego Assessor Parcel Maps; and
WHEREAS, residents living along Oribia Road use San Dieguito Drive to access their homes; and
WHEREAS, San Dieguito Drive and a portion of Oribia Road are not currently part of the public street system or maintained by the City; and WHEREAS, San Dieguito Drive is approximately 17 to 20 linear feet wide and includes adjacent gravel/dirt shoulder areas that are currently used for private and public parking; and
WHEREAS, the asphalt along San Dieguito Drive is in a highly deteriorated condition and in need of significant repair; and
WHEREAS, San Dieguito Drive is classified as a Hillside Residential Street, which is the minimal standard available for residential streets; and WHEREAS, San Dieguito Drive also serves the public interest by providing access to the nearby coastal lagoon and allows for fire apparatus access in the event of wildland fires to the adjacent hillsides; and
WHEREAS, there are both public (“general”) and private (“special”) benefits associated with the repair and replacement of the asphalt along San Dieguito Drive; and WHEREAS, over several decades the residents living along San Dieguito Drive and Oribia Road have requested the City to improve San Dieguito Drive and accept San Dieguito Drive into the City’s roadway system; and
WHEREAS, in response to citizen requests and the public’s use of San Dieguito Drive for fire suppression access and the additional public access to the nearby coastal lagoon, the City proposes to implement a Proposition 218-compliant, balloted benefit assessment district; and
WHEREAS, the City retained SCI Consulting Group to prepare an Engineer’s Report to determine the relative special benefits in proportion to the general public benefits of improving San Dieguito Drive; and
ATTACHMENT B 15 April 15, 2024 Item 11
Resolution No. 2024-XX

WHEREAS, the Engineer’s Report is intended to calculate the assessments for each benefitted parcel (privately owned land) located in the proposed Assessment District in direct proportion to the general benefits conferred to the general public from the improvements intended for San Dieguito Drive; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2024, a Preliminary Draft Engineer’s Report was provided to the residents living along San Dieguito Drive and Oribia Road and to the general public on the City’s website; and
WHEREAS, the Engineer’s Report generally describes the road improvements, also known as the San Dieguito Drive Improvements Project, as removing the existing 17 to 20 feet of deteriorated road, installing a new road section with 16 feet of asphalt with aggregate base and 3.5-foot concrete rolled curbs, providing a wider roadway for 20 feet of drivable surface, improving drainage by installing a standard centerline crown, concrete rolled curbs, storm drain laterals, and storm drain inlet, installing two modular wetlands, installing a retaining wall at the southwest corner of San Dieguito Drive and Racetrack View Drive to widen the roadway, and removal and replacement of poles and undergrounding of electrical and communications; and
WHEREAS, the San Dieguito Drive Improvements Project is estimated to be approximately $1,269,039; and
WHEREAS, the Engineer’s Report calculated the net amount to be assessed upon lands by a formula that fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable parcels in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received by each such parcel from the improvements offset in direct proportion to the general benefits conferred to the public; and
WHEREAS, the Engineer’s Report concluded that the general benefits conferred upon the public for providing wildland fire suppression access, improved coastal access, and general beautification amounts to 54% of the estimated costs of the improvements; and
WHEREAS, under Proposition 218 (adopted on November 6, 1996) which added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the California Constitution and which allows for the establishment of Assessment Districts whereby such assessments are not considered a tax; and
WHEREAS, the Engineer’s Report divided the special benefits into two benefit zone locations, Zone A includes all homes along San Dieguito Drive while Zone B includes all homes along Oribia Road; and
WHEREAS, the special benefits include improved road access to the homes in both Zones A and B, reduction of damage to automobiles from colliding into potholes, improved safety of the residents during times of emergency evacuation, improved ATTACHMENT B 16 April 15, 2024 Item 11
Resolution No. 2024-XX

beautification of their adjoining roads, and improved drainage; and WHEREAS, under Articles XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution impose certain procedural and substantive requirements relating to the imposition of assessments , and
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar believes it to be in the best interest of the City, the general public, and the private property owners to confirm and memorialize the City’s procedures and guidelines regarding implementation of the assessment provisions of Proposition 218 and other pertinent statutes relating to assessments, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, that:

SECTION 1. Statement of Legislative Intent. In adopting this resolution, it is the City of Del Mar Council’s intent to adopt assessment ballot proceedings, which are consistent and in compliance with Articles XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution and with Government Code Sections 53750 through 53754. It is not the intent of the Council to vary in any way from the requirements of either the California Constitution or the laws of the State of California. If there are any inconsistencies between a provision of this resolution and state law, state law will govern.

SECTION 2. Definition of Assessment. Proposition 218 defines “assessment” as “any levy or charge by an agency upon real property that is based upon the special benefit conferred upon the real property by a public improvement or services, that is imposed to pay the capital cost of the public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of the public improvement or the cost of the service being provided.” “Assessment” includes, but is not limited to, “special assessment,” “benefit assessment,” “maintenance assessment,” and “special assessment tax.” SECTION 3. Assessment Ballot Proceeding. The following procedures shall be used in an assessment ballot proceeding that follows the requirements of Article XIIID, section 4 of the California Constitution:

A. Amount of Assessment. Only special benefits are assessable. The amount of each assessment shall be each identified parcel’s proportionate share of the cost of the additional Improvements to San Dieguito Drive based upon that parcel’s special benefit from the Improvements. The amount shall be proportional to and no greater than the special benefits conferred on the property.

B. Engineer’s Report. The Council shall direct the filing of an Engineer’s Report that shall comply with the applicable state statute authorizing the assessment and with Article XIIID, Section 4, of the California Constitution. The Engineer’s Report has explained the special benefits conferred by the improvements and/or services funded by the assessments. The Engineer’s Report will provide the evidence upon which the Council may find that a special benefit is to be conferred on to the private ATTACHMENT B 17 April 15, 2024 Item 11
Resolution No. 2024-XX

property interest The Engineer’s Report will describe the general benefits and provide the amount of City funding of those general benefits conferred to the public.

The Engineer’s Report shall be prepared by a registered professional engineer certified by the State of California, (the “Assessment Engineer”). The cost to prepare the Engineer’s Report, engineering design, and other costs will be included as a cost of the assessment and apportioned between the special benefits conferred to private landowners.

C. Public Notice. The following guidelines apply to providing notice of an of the formation of the Assessment District and the assessments:

1. The record owner(s) of each parcel to be assessed will be determined from the last equalized property tax roll. If the property tax roll indicates more than one owner, each owner shall receive notice. Only property owners receive notice;

2. The notice will be sent at least 45 days prior to the date set for the public hearing on the assessment in which the place and time of the hearing will be conspicuously noted;

3. The notice in a conspicuous place will contain the following information:
a. The total amount to be assessed for the entire Improvement District; b. The amount to be assessed to the owner’s particular parcel; c. The duration of the payments;
d. The reason for the assessment;
e. The basis upon which the amount of the proposed assessment was calculated;
f. The date, time and location of the City Council of the City of Del Mar public hearing on the matter of the proposed assessment;
g. A summary of the procedures for the completion, return and tabulation of the assessment ballots;
h. A disclosure statement that the existence of a majority protest will result in the assessment not being imposed; and
i. A ballot to be completed by the owner, as further described in section D of this resolution.

4. The notice provided to the property owners within the Assessment District will ATTACHMENT B 18 April 15, 2024 Item 11
Resolution No. 2024-XX

be strictly in accordance with Government Code Sections 53753(b) and (c) shall supersede and be in lieu of any other statutes requiring notice to levy or increase an assessment, including but not limited to the notice required by the state statute authorizing the assessment and Government Code section 54954.6;

5. Should there be a failure of any person to receive notice shall not invalidate the proceedings;

6. The cost of providing notice shall be included as a cost of the assessment.

7. The City will provide official ballots to the homeowners, and in 16-point bold type: “OFFICIAL BALLOT.” The City will additionally place the phrase “OFFICIAL BALLOT ENCLOSED” on the face of the envelope mailed to the record owner.

D. Assessment Ballot. The following guidelines shall apply to the assessment ballot:

1. The ballot required by Article XIIID, section 4(d), of the California Constitution will be mailed to all property owners identified by the current property tax records the subject to the proposed assessment at least 45 days prior to the date of the public hearing on the proposed assessment. This ballot shall comply with Government Code Sections 53753(b) and (c). The ballot shall be designed in such a way that, once sealed, its contents are concealed.

2. All ballots must be returned either by mail or by hand delivery; not later than the date for return of ballots stated on the notice and ballot described in this section. Mailed ballots must be returned to: Del Mar City Clerk, 1050 Camino Del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014. Ballots must be returned prior to the conclusion of the public input portion of the public hearing scheduled for 4:30 p.m. on June 17, 2024. The City Clerk, with the assistance of SCI Consulting Group shall tabulate the ballots (the “Tabulator”).

3. Each ballot must be signed under penalty of perjury. In the event that more than one of the record owners of a parcel submits an assessment ballot, the amount of the proposed assessment to be imposed upon the parcel shall be allocated to each ballot submitted in proportion to the respective record ownership interests or, if the ownership interests are not shown on the record, as established to the satisfaction of the Council or Assessment Engineer by documentation provided by the record owners. If two or more persons own a parcel subject to the assessment, any one owner may cast an assessment ballot for all owners.

4. If a parcel has multiple owners, any owner may request a proportional assessment ballot. If the ownership interest of the owner is not shown on the last equalized secured property tax assessment roll, such request must ATTACHMENT B 19 April 15, 2024 Item 11
Resolution No. 2024-XX

include evidence, satisfactory to the City, of the owner's proportional rights in the parcel. The Assessment Engineer will provide the proportional ballot to the owner at the address shown on the assessment roll. Any request for a ballot to be mailed to another location must include evidence, satisfactory to the City, of the identity of the person requesting the ballot. Each proportional ballot will be marked to identify it as a proportional ballot and to indicate the owner's proportional rights in the parcel. The Assessment Engineer will keep a record of each proportional ballot provided to an owner.

5. The City will only accept official ballots mailed or otherwise provided to owners by the Assessment Engineer.

6. If an assessment ballot is lost, withdrawn, destroyed or never received, the Assessment Engineer will mail or otherwise provide a replacement ballot to the owner upon receipt of a request delivered to the City or the Assessment Engineer. The replacement ballot will be marked to identify it as a replacement ballot or a replacement proportional ballot. Any request for a replacement or replacement proportional ballot to be mailed to another location must include evidence, satisfactory to the City or the Assessment Engineer, of the identity of the person requesting the ballot. The same procedure applies to replacement ballots or replacement proportional ballots, which are lost, withdrawn, destroyed, or never received.

7. If an assessment ballot is returned by the United States Post Office as undeliverable, the Assessment Engineer may mail a redelivered ballot to the current property owner, if updated ownership or owner mailing address can be determined. The redelivered ballot will be marked to identify it as a redelivered ballot.

8. An assessment ballot proceeding is not an election.

9. An assessment ballot is a disclosable “public record” as that phrase is defined by Government Code section 6252 during and after tabulation of the ballots.

10. The California Government Code requires that assessment ballots be signed by property owners.

11. To complete an assessment ballot, the owner of the parcel or his or her authorized representative must (1) mark the appropriate box (or circle) supporting or opposing the proposed assessment, and (2) sign, under penalty of perjury, the statement on the ballot that the person completing the ballot is the owner of the parcel or the owner's authorized representative. Only one box (or circle) may be stamped or marked on each ballot. All incomplete or improperly marked ballots shall be disqualified from balloting. The Tabulator will retain all such invalid ballots.

ATTACHMENT B 20 April 15, 2024 Item 11
Resolution No. 2024-XX

12. After returning an assessment ballot to the City, or the Tabulator on behalf of the City, the person who signed the ballot may withdraw the ballot by submitting a written statement to the City directing the City to withdraw the ballot. Such statement must be received by the City or the Tabulator prior to the close of the public input portion of the public hearing on the proposed assessment. When ballots for the assessment are tabulated, the Tabulator will segregate withdrawn ballots from all other returned ballots. The Tabulator will retain all withdrawn ballots and will indicate on the face of such withdrawn ballots that they have been withdrawn.

13. In order to change the contents of a ballot that has been submitted, the person who has signed that ballot may (1) request that such ballot be withdrawn, (2) request that a replacement ballot be issued, and (3) return the replacement ballot fully completed. Each of these steps must be completed according to the procedures set forth above.

E. Tabulating Ballots. The following guidelines will apply to tabulating assessment ballots:

1. Assessment ballots shall remain sealed until tabulation commences at the conclusion of the public input portion of the public hearing.

2. An impartial person shall tabulate the assessment ballots. An impartial person includes, but is not limited to, the City Clerk, City staff, and any independent third party engaged by the City for the purpose of tabulating assessment ballots. The Tabulator shall follow the rules and procedures of the laws of the State of California, this resolution and any other rules and procedures of the Council. If the Tabulator needs clarification, then they shall inquire of the Council, who is the final arbiter. All ballots shall be accepted as valid except those in the following categories:
a. A photocopy of a ballot, a letter or other form of a ballot that is not an official ballot provided by the City or the Assessment Engineer on behalf of the City;
b. An unsigned ballot, or ballot signed by an unauthorized individual;
c. A ballot which lacks an identifiable mark in the box for a “yes” or “no” vote or with more than one box marked;
d. A ballot which appears tampered with or otherwise invalid based upon its appearance or method of delivery or other
circumstances;
e. A ballot for which the barcode representing the parcel number is damaged or obstructed, unless the parcel number or property ATTACHMENT B 21 April 15, 2024 Item 11
Resolution No. 2024-XX

ownership information is legible and allows the Tabulator to clearly determine the property(s) identified on the ballot; f. A ballot received after the close of the balloting time period.

3. The Tabulator’s decision, after consultation with the Council’s legal counsel that a ballot is invalid, shall be final and may not be appealed to the Council.

4. If more than one of the record owners of a parcel submits an assessment ballot, the amount of the proposed assessment to be imposed upon the parcel shall be allocated to each ballot in proportion to the respective record ownership interests, as shown on the record or as established to the City’s satisfaction by documentation provided by the record owners.

5. In the event of a dispute regarding whether the signer of a ballot is the owner of the parcel to which the ballot applies, the City Council will make the determination from the official County Assessor records and any evidence of ownership submitted to the Council prior to the conclusion of the public hearing. The Council will be under no affirmative duty to obtain or consider any other evidence as to ownership of property and its determination of ownership will be final and conclusive.

6. In the event of a dispute regarding whether the signer of a ballot is an authorized representative of the owner of the parcel, the Council may rely on the statement on the ballot signed under penalty of perjury that the person completing the ballot is the owner's authorized representative and any evidence submitted to the Council prior to the conclusion of the public hearing.

The Council will be under no duty to obtain or consider any other evidence as to whether the signer of the ballot is an authorized representative of the owner and its determination will be final and conclusive.

7. A property owner who has submitted an assessment ballot may withdraw the ballot and submit a new or changed ballot up until the conclusion of the public input portion of the public hearing on the assessment. Assessment ballots may be withdrawn, and newer changed ballots submitted up until the conclusion of the public input portion of the public hearing on the assessment.

8. A property owner’s failure to receive an assessment ballot shall not invalidate the proceedings conducted under this section and section 4, Article XIIID, of the California Constitution.

9. The City shall retain all ballots for a period of 2 years from the date of the public hearing.

10. Each ballot will be treated as a disclosable public record and equally available for inspection by the proponents and the opponents of the proposed assessment.

ATTACHMENT B 22 April 15, 2024 Item 11
Resolution No. 2024-XX

F. Public Hearing.

1. At the public hearing, the Council shall hear and consider all public testimony, objections and protests regarding the proposed assessment and accept ballots until the close of the public input portion of the public hearing.

2. Reasonable time limits may be imposed on both the length of the entire hearing and the length of each speaker’s testimony.

3. At the conclusion of the public input portion of the hearing, the Tabulator shall begin tabulation of the ballots at the direction of the Council, including those ballots received during the public hearing.

4. If it is not possible to tabulate the ballots on the day of the public hearing, or if additional time is necessary for public testimony, the Council may continue the public hearing to a later date to receive additional testimony or information, or to finish tabulating the ballots.

5. A majority protest exists if the assessment ballots submitted, and not withdrawn, in opposition to the proposed assessment exceed the assessment ballots submitted, and not withdrawn, in its favor, weighting those assessment ballots by the amount of the proposed assessment to be imposed upon the identified parcel for which each assessment ballot was submitted.

6. If there is a majority protest against the imposition of the new assessment the City will not impose the assessment.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at the Regular Meeting held this 15th day of April, 2024. ______________________________
Dave Druker, Mayor
City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
ATTACHMENT B 23 April 15, 2024 Item 11
Resolution No. 2024-XX

ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CITY OF DEL MAR
I, SARAH KRIETOR, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2024-XX, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 15th day of April, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

RECUSE:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
ATTACHMENT B 24 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
Resident Assessment Survey Information
San Dieguito Drive Improvements

1. Survey Regarding Proposed Resident Assessment District.

The City is surveying residents to gauge support for the creation of a resident assessment district to fund the resident portion of critical improvements to privately owned San Dieguito Drive. Answering the survey will not result in any financial obligation. The results of the survey will inform recommendations to be made by the City’s engineering assessment services consultant (SCI) and staff on whether to proceed with the ballot process legally required by Proposition 218 to form an assessment district. The ballot process would give residents along San Dieguito Drive and Oribia Road the opportunity to vote for or against the creation of an assessment district to fund their portion of the project.

2. San Dieguito Drive is in Poor Condition.

San Dieguito Drive has not been well maintained and is in poor condition. Unless it is converted to a publicly maintained roadway, it is likely to continue to deteriorate. A poorly maintained roadway creates issues such as flooding and drainage issues, dangerous conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists, risk of damage to vehicles from potholes and other poor roadway conditions, and impacts public safety access, particularly Fire engines.

3. Residents Have Asked the City to Help.

Because San Dieguito Drive is a privately owned road, the private property owners along San Dieguito Drive are responsible for maintaining it. This maintenance is expensive, and San Dieguito Drive and Oribia Road residents have asked the City for its help going back decades. The City Council has shown interest in partnering with residents to complete the critical improvements by hiring SCI to evaluate and propose a methodology in which the City and residents would jointly contribute toward the cost of the work.

4. Mutual Benefits of Improvements to San Dieguito Drive.

Improvements to San Dieguito Drive will widen and enhance the roadway, providing better public safety vehicle access; provide new rolled curbs, gutter and important drainage improvements, preventing future flooding to private property; provide a safer path of travel for pedestrians and vehicles; transfer future road maintenance responsibilities to the City, relieving private property owners of this burden; potentially increase private property values, with certainty of a well maintained road and no future resident maintenance obligations.

5. Shared Cost of Improvements between City and Residents.

Although the City maintains a public access easement to use San Dieguito Drive, it is not responsible for maintaining or improving the privately owned road. However, the City can justify helping residents find a solution because public use of the road provides some public benefit. As a result, SCI is recommending the City pay approximately 70% of the improvement project costs and assume responsibility for the road going forward, if the residents are willing to pay for the remaining 30% of the improvement costs.

ATTACHMENT C 25 April 15, 2024 Item 11

6. Opportunity to Coordinate with City Utility Undergrounding Project.

The City and residents agree that the most cost-effective and efficient way to improve San Dieguito Drive would be to do so at the same time as the City’s upcoming utility undergrounding project. If there is sufficient support indicated by residents through this survey to move forward with a formal 218 process to form an assessment district, the projects would be publicly bid out together. If the assessment passes, the City would move forward with construction of the San Dieguito Drive Improvements project in conjunction with the undergrounding work in the area. If the assessment fails, the City will complete the utility undergrounding project only, leaving the responsibility for the cost of future improvements, maintenance, and repairs of San Dieguito Drive in the hands of property owners.

7. City Recommended to Fund Majority of Improvement Project Costs.

This project is currently estimated to cost $1.3 million, with actual costs to be determined through the City’s required competitive public bidding process. Although the City is not obligated to pay for these improvements, SCI is recommending the City pay approximately 70% of the total project cost based on an analysis of public benefit.

The remaining 30%, or $400,000, would be paid by property owners over a period of 20 years, at no interest.

8. Who will Participate and What Will it Cost?
SCI is recommending that residents on San Dieguito Drive and Oribia Road participate in a residential assessment district to fund the resident portion of the project. As those primarily responsible for San Dieguito Drive, the rate for each property along San Dieguito Drive would be approximately $889 per year. The rate for each property along Oribia Road, which uses San Dieguito Drive for access, would be 50% of that, or $445 per year. Assessment district voting would be weighted to reflect these proportional contributions.

9. Flexible Payment Options for Homeowners.

Property owners would be able to pay their share of the improvement costs in one payment up front with no pre-payment penalty, or they may pay the amount over 20 years at no interest. For those who choose to pay for the improvements over time, the annual amount due will be added as a line item on the property’s annual property tax bill. The obligation would run with the property, not the individual property owner(s).

10. What is Required to Form an Assessment District?
Through a formal Proposition 218 ballot process, 50% + 1 of the participating property owners would need to vote in favor of forming an assessment district. The voting would be weighted to reflect 1 vote per property on San Dieguito Drive, and 0.5 vote per property on Oribia Road.

11. What Happens if the Assessment Doesn’t Pass?
If residents fail to pass the assessment district providing for a resident contribution to the project costs, it is unlikely that the project will move forward. The City would complete the planned utility undergrounding project, and the proposed improvements to San Dieguito Drive would be deferred until such time that the residents could commit to paying a proportionate share of the costs.

ATTACHMENT C 26 April 15, 2024 Item 11
IMPORTANT – ACTION REQUIRED

SAN DIEGUITO DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT - RESIDENT SURVEY Please complete the following questions and return to [email protected] no later than Tuesday, February 20, 2024. If you have questions, please use the email address above or call (858) 375-9531 to speak to staff. Only one survey should be submitted for each property.
1) Name of Homeowner:
2) Property Address:

The scope of work for the San Dieguito Drive Improvements Project includes widening and repaving San Dieguito Drive; new rolled curbs and gutters; drainage improvements; and the installation of minimal retaining walls where absolutely needed. The estimated project cost is $1,300,000.

The City’s assessment engineering services consultant recommends the City pay approximately 70% of the total project cost based on an analysis of public benefit. The remaining 30%, or $400,000, would be paid by property owners.

For San Dieguito Drive property owners, this would equate to an annual contribution of $889; and $445 annually for property owners along Oribia Road. The amount would be paid through an assessment district over a 20-year period (no interest), or could be paid as a lump sum, one-time payment.
3) Would you be willing to pay the resident share for your property as described above? (Mark below with X).

Yes: _______ No: ________
4) If you answered No to #3, please explain why and what you would be willing to contribute to the project:

Note: Deadline for submittal extended
to April 5, 2024
ATTACHMENT C 27 April 15, 2024 Item 11
3/1/2024
1 San Dieguito Drive Improvements Project
Responses to Resident Questions Regarding
Engineering Assessment District Formation
It should be noted that in some cases very similar/duplicative questions were submitted by multiple property owners. To eliminate redundancy, we only included one version of the question and the related response in this document.

1. Will all lots, including vacant lots, pay for the improvements? For instance, I own 2 lots. Will both lots be taxed? If so, where is my ballot for the vacant lot? SCI has not finalized the Engineer’s Report, but the current methodology would charge only lots with a single-family home because only those parcels would receive special benefits from the proposed improvements. The survey is not the official ballot.

2. How many lots own the road? How many lots do not own the road? Can you give us a list of all parcel numbers and addresses that will be included in the assessment district?
The assessment district includes all developed properties that use this segment of San Dieguito Drive as their sole route of ingress/egress. The 14 properties along San Dieguito Drive own the road with an easement in favor of the City of Del Mar for “right of way for road purposes and for sewer, water, gas, power and telephone lines”. The 17 properties along Oribia Road do not own the road but are included in the assessment as the properties have special benefit because San Dieguito Drive is the sole route of ingress/egress.

3. Will the properties be reassessed due to road improvement? We do not believe the proposed improvements, if constructed, will have an impact on the assessed value of the adjacent properties. However, residents should contact the County assessor's office to confirm or obtain more information.

4. How wide will the easement be? For instance, my easement is 30 feet from the center of the road and the street covers 10 feet of that easement. Will the road easement be reduced to 10-15 feet?
The new easement will replace the existing easement and will be the same size and location of the existing 60-foot easement. As such, the new easement will replace your 30-foot easement in the same location.

5. Who will determine what costs belong in the assessment district? Will homeowners in the assessment district share oversight on the costs of the project?
ATTACHMENT D 28 April 15, 2024 Item 11
3/1/2024
2 The City would manage and be responsible for project oversight in accordance with State public contract and labor law. As a City-managed project that requires City Council approval, members of the public, which include the property owners in the assessment district, will have the opportunity to review and provide input on the project’s anticipated cost. Proportionate costs to be included in the assessment district would include the improvements necessary to bring the road to public standards as discussed with the residents. This includes costs for planning, design, construction, easements, and assessment district services. The construction cost will be determined via the legally required public bidding process.

6. Are you asking us to vote for a dollar amount or a percentage? We are asking residents to provide input on the proposed dollar amount. The survey is not a formal voting process, nor does it obligate the residents in any way. However, if we proceed with a Prop 218 ballot process, residents will be asked to vote on a fixed dollar amount.

7. Many residents have expressed frustration that the San Dieguito Drive residents will pay twice as much as the Oribia Road residents, and some residents on Oribia feel they should pay nothing at all. Can you explain the rationale? Assessments can only be levied based on the special benefits conveyed to each individual property interest. Special benefit is benefit received by the property over and above any general benefits conveyed to the general public from the proposed improvements to San Dieguito Drive. A special benefit is a service or improvement that provides a direct advantage to each parcel.

One or more benefit factors may apply equally to properties on both San Dieguito Drive and Oribia Road, but properties on San Dieguito Drive receive more special benefits from some benefit factors than what is received by properties on Oribia Road. Preliminary, the Assessment Engineer has initially determined that, in total, the properties on San Dieguito Drive, which are adjacent to the proposed improvements, may receive twice the special benefit of properties on Oribia Road.

8. What is the legal basis for this statement, “Because San Dieguito Drive is a privately owned road, the private property owners along San Dieguito Drive are responsible for maintaining it….Although the City maintains a public access easement to use San Dieguito Drive, it is not responsible for maintaining or improving the privately owned road.”? My research indicates that the easement holders are responsible for maintaining this stretch of road.

The portion of San Dieguito Drive in question is a privately owned road with use for public purposes provided through an easement. For the City’s purposes, this scenario is described as San Dieguito being a “public road.” The City has no maintenance obligation for a private road until the road has been accepted by the city into its street system (Streets and Highway Code section 1806(a)). A public street is a road that has been ATTACHMENT D 29 April 15, 2024 Item 11
3/1/2024
3 accepted into the City’s street system for maintenance purposes. Acceptance into the street system must be accomplished by a resolution adopted by the City (Streets and Highway Code section 1806(b)).

While extended public use of a roadway does not impose a maintenance obligation on the City. Regardless, the City recognizes the unique factors regarding San Dieguito Drive, including it being the only ingress/egress for Oribia Road among other factors, and has expressed an interest and willingness to work collaboratively with residents to come up with a solution, including the City contributing toward the cost of doing so.

9. What calculation did SCI use to arrive at this recommendation? “As a result, SCI is recommending the City pay approximately 70% of the improvement project costs and assume responsibility for the road going forward, if the residents are willing to pay for the remaining 30% of the improvement costs.”
As will be discussed as part of the upcoming presentation to residents by SCI, the special benefit to each property has been calculated to be much greater than what each property is being asked to pay. The City may consider paying some portion of the project costs because it is concerned about the poor conditions of the road and as a result access during emergencies may be impeded and therefore may cause in extreme cases health & safety issues for some residents. When the City contributes funds to mitigate health and safety issues it is not considered a gift of public funds.

10. What is the legal basis for the claim that the property owners on San Dieguito Drive are “primarily responsible” for San Dieguito Drive? See response to question 8. The private property owners have full maintenance obligations of the private road until such time that the City accepts the road into the City roadway system.

11. Normally, assessment districts assign a share of the cost of a project based on the calculated benefit to each property owner (and other potential beneficiaries.) For instance, a house that is only one third of the way up San Dieguito Drive would derive only 1/3 of the benefit that the property owners on Oribia Road would receive if the road were repaired. According to that standard, the San Dieguito property owner should pay only about one third of what an Oribia Drive property owner would pay instead of twice as much (which is what SCI has proposed.)
The methodology you are recommending is not typically used for assessments like these.

The methodology must be reasonable and rational but does not need to be based on where along the street a property is situated or how much is used by each individual property owner.

ATTACHMENT D 30 April 15, 2024 Item 11
3/1/2024
4 12. Can you tell me what authority you are relying on to include Oribia Road residents in an assessment district for improvements and maintenance on San Dieguito Drive?
The proposed funding measure is a benefit assessment, under the authority of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 and Proposition 218, which are part of the California Constitution. In a benefit assessment, the amount of assessment on each property is based on the relative special benefit received by that property from the proposed improvements.

13. What is the legal authority to form the assessment district to include Oribia? Both Public and Private Oribia?
Under proposition 218, all parcels which receive special benefit from the improvements can be assessed. The assessment engineer has determined that the properties on public and private Oribia Road included in this proposed measure receive special benefit from the proposed improvements in an amount greater than these parcels are being asked to pay. The special benefits will be further explained in the draft Engineer’s Report which will be presented at the resident meeting scheduled for March 5, and available thereafter.

14. What is the authority for SDD Private residents (property owners) by vote or otherwise to force payment by Private Oribia residents? If the Council authorizes the Prop 218 ballot measure process to proceed, the process for the proposed assessment will be done under the authority of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Proposition 218. This includes the voting method and the resulting obligation to pay if the measure passes and the levies are ordered by the City Council.

15. What is the legal authority of the City to become involved in that matter if a claim hasn't been filed?
The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 gives the City the authority to proceed with a benefit assessment measure for the proposed improvements. San Dieguito Drive provides an access route to nearby hillside communities and in some cases access to recreational trails. It also contains a public utility easement to serve the local community.

Accordingly, the City may share in funding a portion of the benefits to ensure that the road can support emergency access and that the City has reliable access to its utility easement.

16. What is the legal authority to create voting rules as proposed? The process for the proposed assessment will be under the authority of Proposition 218.

This includes the voting method.

ATTACHMENT D 31 April 15, 2024 Item 11
3/1/2024
5 17. What is the legal authority to take away voting rights? Especially when it includes taxation?
The process for the proposed assessment will be done under the authority of Proposition 218, which provides voting rights for assessments (it does not take away voting rights).

All affected property owners will have the ability to vote on the 218 ballot measure. The weight of the vote for individual properties is determined based on the special benefit received.

18. What is the basis for the SCI proposed allocation including legal precedence? Are other public users (Fedex, UPS, etc.) receiving notices for their allocation of use? Are they invited to these meetings? Why or why not? If they are not being treated the same as Private Oribia why or why not? Aren't they the same status? Public users? To the degree usage is a SCI factor shouldn't they (FedEx and other heavy public users) also be responsible? Is there an analysis to show their usage is different than a resident on Private Oribia? Or does the analysis just assume because someone lives close they must use? The allocation of special benefits will be explained in the draft Engineer’s Report, which will be presented to residents on March 5, and available thereafter. The allocation of special benefits will be calculated in compliance with Proposition 218. All members of the public are welcome to attend any and all public meetings regarding the proposed assessment measure. Per Proposition 218, special benefits are allocated based on the special benefits to property. Any general benefits received by the general public must be paid from sources other than the assessment, and will be more than covered by the amount the City is recommended to contribute toward the cost of the improvements.

19. SDD Road maintenance is the legal and financial responsibility of the 14 SDD property owners, not Oribia property owners. We derive our easement to drive on SDD from the City’s easement, which does not include any maintenance responsibility. We do have maintenance responsibility for Private Oribia Road.

The price paid for homes in the area factors in those financial and legal facts.

The private property owners on San Dieguito Drive have full maintenance obligations of the private road until or if the City accepts the road into the City roadway system.

However, there are special benefits for both San Dieguito Drive and Oribia Road developed properties that would result from the San Dieguito Drive Improvement Project.

That would be the basis for forming an assessment district.

20. There is no methodology presented for the proposed area residents splitting of costs or for the proposed weighting of votes. What is the legal basis and authority for any of these proposals? To propose to reduce our vote on a matter of taxation is remarkable. Seriously? ½ a vote on an issue of taxation? The lessons in history (Tea Tossed in 1773, and reverting to the 3/5's of a person clause in 1787) should have stopped that notion cold.

ATTACHMENT D 32 April 15, 2024 Item 11
3/1/2024
6 The proposed funding measure is a benefit assessment, based on the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 and Proposition 218, which is part of the California Constitution. The Engineer’s Report will explain the rationale in more detail and is based on the relative special benefit received. Assessments can only be levied based on the special benefit to property. For the purpose of the assessment, special benefit is benefit that is received by property over and above any general benefits from the improvements. A special benefit is a service or improvement that provides a direct advantage to a parcel. One or more benefit factors may apply equally to properties on both San Dieguito Drive and Oribia Road, but properties on San Dieguito Drive receive more special benefit from some benefit factors than what is received by properties on Oribia Road. The Assessment Engineer has preliminarily determined that, in total, the properties on San Dieguito Drive, which are adjacent to the proposed improvements, receive twice the special benefit of properties on Oribia Road.

21. There is a highly disproportionate benefit in terms of increases in property values to the 14 SDD drive property owners versus the 18 Oribia Rd. property owners who will receive no associated increase in the value of their property from their payment of ~$9k while SDD owners will receive returns in multiples of their $18k “investment”.

Assessments are based on the relative special benefit received by property and is not based on the value of property.

22. As for the amount we would be willing to contribute to the project: As a matter of principle and law, we see only two groups of payors: 1) Del Mar Residents, and 2) the owners of SDD themselves. Oribia property owners are in group #1.

Oribia Road residents are considered a separate group since they receive special benefit over and above any general benefits from the improvements as they use San Dieguito Drive as their sole ingress/egress.

23. Have SDD residents filed any claims as is their presumed right to compel a SDD property owner to maintain their portion of SDD?
This is a question for SDD residents, not the City. The City does not have records for claims between private property owners nor have we been made aware of any claims for San Dieguito Drive property owners for road maintenance.

24. How will the City handle and fund any legal claims from residents arising from this? Including Title Company’s?
The City’s response to legal action(s) is confidential and privileged. Funding for legal matters is handled as part of the City’s normal budget process.

ATTACHMENT D 33 April 15, 2024 Item 11
3/1/2024
7 25. Why isn’t the cost for the paving post undergrounding “taken off the top” of the $1.3M before the proposed split? That repaving comes from Measure Q funding, correct?
The City will use public funds, including Measure Q, to pay for the City’s financial contribution to the project’s cost. Reference answer to question 9.

The Undergrounding Project, which is funded entirely by Measure Q revenue, will only replace approximately 3’ feet of roadway asphalt where trenching is required along San Dieguito Drive. This is standard practice for trenching activities. The San Dieguito Drive Improvements project includes many more construction elements then just roadway asphalt improvements (e.g., concrete rolled curbs, retaining wall, drainage improvements, driveway replacements, grading, etc.). Thus, the 3 feet of asphalt paving costs associated with undergrounding utility lines along San Dieguito Drive are expected to be a small fraction of the overall San Dieguito Drive Improvements Project costs.

26. Does the SCI report consider the entire $1.3m as an immediate increase in value to SDD homeowners? That's approximately $100k in immediate value per home, correct? On top of which the value to avoid future maintenance in what amount? What are the specific financial calculations in the allocation in the report? Any expert opinions?
Benefit assessments are not based on property values, and SCI does not analyze any potential change in property values based on the proposed improvements. SCI is analyzing the special benefits based on the proposed improvements and is not analyzing any additional special benefits the properties may receive from future maintenance of the road after the improvements have been completed. The specific calculations will be included in the Engineer’s Report, which will presented at the March 5, resident meeting and available thereafter. The Assessment Engineer who will sign the Engineer’s Report is an expert in Proposition 218 benefit assessments.

27. Given the City's willingness to pay for private road maintenance will the City pay for other Private roads such as Private Oribia? Is it the city attorney's legal opinion no precedence is established?
City Attorney opinions are privileged communications and are protected from public distribution.

28. If voting rights are taken away from residents and the matter proceeds how will the city handle non-payment? How will it handle for any case? Proposition 218 provides voting rights for assessments (it does not take away voting rights), which may be weighted based on special benefits received. If the measure passes and the levies are ordered by the City Council, the assessments will be included on the annual property tax bill for each affected parcel. We expect the county to handle nonpayment of any property tax bills according to its normal procedures and practices.

ATTACHMENT D 34 April 15, 2024 Item 11
3/1/2024
8 29. Is the City opening any liability accordingly?
The City does not foresee any additional liability from formation of the improvements district.

30. Why didn't the City require, as is required by statute, public access for Private Oribia once a portion of Oribia became public? Public Oribia apparently does not meet that statute standard for access.

The history related to this area of the community dates back many decades, many of the records for which no longer exist, and it is unclear, given the passage of time, as to the reasons why certain actions may or may not have been taken.

31. Who pays for cost overruns? Cost under?
Once the assessment measure is voted on and the results are certified by the City Council, the amount of the assessment for each property cannot be increased absent another ballot measure. Therefore, if costs are greater than expected, any increase in costs would be borne by the City or other funding source. If costs are less than expected, the City Council would be asked to provide direction as to whether to keep the assessment amounts the same (as long as the assessment amount still does not exceed the special benefits received), or lower the amount of the assessment to reflect some or all of the cost savings.

ATTACHMENT D 35 April 15, 2024 Item 11
4/4/2024
1 San Dieguito Drive Improvements Project
Responses to Resident Questions
It should be noted that in some cases very similar/duplicative questions were submitted by multiple property owners. To eliminate redundancy, we only included one version of the question and the related response in this document.

1. Where would the two modular wetlands be installed? Across the road on the north side of the intersection of San Dieguito Drive and Racetrack View Drive? Why would two be needed?
The modular wetlands are to be located just south of Racetrack View Drive on the proposed improved section of San Dieguito Drive uphill from the proposed storm drain curb inlets (reference April 3rd Resident Meeting Presentation). The two modular wetlands are permanent best management practices (BMPs) determined necessary based on the storm water quality management plan developed to mitigate the increase in impervious area. These are storm water treatment systems designed to treat storm water flowing down both curb lines.

2. What does the following sentence mean on Page 11? “Because of the longstanding commitment and history of the proposed Improvement District, it has been proposed that the City additionally absorb proportional costs above the 54%, for preconstruction services (preliminary engineering assessment, engineering design, assessment engineering services, and environmental) at the same rate as construction costs.” Can you please explain this calculation with numbers? The project costs include both pre-construction costs (preliminary engineering assessment, engineering design, assessment engineering services, and environmental) and construction costs. This sentence in the engineer’s report proposes the City absorb proportional costs for all project costs (pre-construction services and construction costs) at the same rate. The calculation for the rate of at least 54% is shown in the “Calculating General Benefit” section further down in the report.

3. The following sentence on Page 16, “Here, properties located within the Improvement District receive special benefits from the improvements because those properties uniquely adjoin the Improvements and because these Improvements are along a private road are not enjoyed by the public at large.” Correction: This “private road” is enjoyed by the public at large. This specific statement in the draft report contradicts other statements later in the report regarding public at large usage of the road: “some members of the public may use it to access the lagoon and Crest Canyon Park or its trails…there are occasional users of San Dieguito Drive who park for the fairgrounds and/or beach, and for birdwatchers.”
The properties along San Dieguito Drive enjoy some benefits that are not enjoyed at all by the public at large. For instance, proposed drainage improvements will prevent water ATTACHMENT E 36 April 15, 2024 Item 11
4/4/2024
2 runoff onto adjoining properties. This is not a benefit to the public at large. In addition, other benefits received by the properties within the assessment boundaries, such as improved ingress for emergency vehicles, is a benefit to the properties within the proposed assessment boundaries 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, while that benefit only impacts some members of the general public (those who don’t live within the proposed assessment boundaries but enter the area on occasion), and only for a short period of time (the duration of their visit).

4. The following sentence on Page 17, “Therefore, the remaining 62 homes receive benefit from the improvements. Of these, 31 homes are in the proposed Improvement District and 31 homes are outside of it. As a result, 50% of the benefit (31 of 62) is special benefit, and 50% (100% total benefit minus 50% special benefit) is general benefit.” The 31 homes on Oribia Road and San Dieguito Drive receive equal special benefit in calculating the general and special benefits related to Wildland Fire. Why then are the 31 homes not receiving an equal special benefit in the categories of Emergency Access, Evacuation and Safety/Damage? All emergency vehicles must use San Dieguito Drive in order to provide emergency services to all 31 homes. All 31 homes use SDD for emergency evacuation. All 31 homes are equally susceptible to safety issues and property damage from the deteriorated condition of the road surface.

Refer to the following paragraph under “Special Notes on Weighting and Scoring Analysis” in the report – “The scoring for Zone B requires more analysis and more discussion. Safety/Damage, Evacuation, and Emergency Access attributes require close proximity to receive a full score, and receive a lower score as the proximity decreases.

The proposed improvements (including road widening, improved pavement quality and capacity, improved drainage, etc.) provide a higher level of direct access improvement to the Zone A parcels. For example, heavy emergency equipment can get closer to a specific home in Zone A, and maneuver better and turn better along San Dieguito Drive resulting from the proposed improvements in ways that are not conferred on the Zone B parcels. Of course, the Safety/Damage, Evacuation, and Emergency Access special benefits are comprehensively conferred to Zone B parcels, but not as much, because there are not improvements proximate to specific houses.”

5. The following sentence on Page 18, “The general benefit to the public at large can be estimated by the proportionate amount of time that San Dieguito Drive is used by individuals who are not property owners… Surveys of park and recreation facility usage conducted by SCI Consulting Group have found that less than 4% of a park district’s facility usage is by those who do not live or work within District boundaries.”
The surveys used by SCI to calculate this number appear to have significantly underestimated the extent to which San Dieguito Drive is used by the public at large. For example, much of the foot traffic on the road is from hikers who use the road as a preferred thoroughfare from Northern Crest Canyon to the lagoon. When ATTACHMENT E 37 April 15, 2024 Item 11
4/4/2024
3 the Riverpath Del Mar Phase III Extension Project is completed in 2025, San Dieguito Drive will be used even more frequently by the general public. https://www.delmar.ca.us/853/RiverPath-Del-Mar-Phase-III-Extension-Pr In addition to public pedestrian use of the road, private San Dieguito Drive provides some of the closest free parking available for fairgrounds users. The northernmost section of the road is frequently used for parking by the general public who are utilizing nearby trails and public attractions. The 4% statistic quoted does not appear to be relevant to this very unique location surrounded by public attractions.

For example, Annie’s Canyon is a popular public attraction with a trail head on a cul-de-sac on N Rios Ave in Solana Beach. Most of the cars that park on the street adjacent to the trail head belong to the general public who are hiking the trail. This situation is very similar to the use of private San Dieguito Drive for public parking.

As correctly noted, SCI determined that the 4% measure is appropriate with 54% as the baseline percentage for general benefits, however, there are other public benefits that are currently being evaluated that may allow the City to contribute additional funding.

6. The following sentence on Page 18, “Like Zone A, the special benefit is distributed uniformly within Zone B. Like the residents along San Dieguito Drive, the residents along Oribia Road enjoy the same special benefits as listed above.

Each Oribia Road residents will have improved access for emergency response and private use access, reduction in property damage from flooding and impacts to their private vehicles, better private delivery to their homes, and safer evacuation access during times of emergencies. The Improvements related to some of the special benefits in Zone B are generally equal to those in Zone A; however, some special benefits, such as drainage and views, are lower.” The draft report states that some of the special benefits in Zone B (except drainage and views) are generally equal to those in Zone A. Therefore, the special benefit allocated to Zone B in these categories should be generally equal to Zone A. The weighted benefit analysis would change as shown:

ATTACHMENT E 38 April 15, 2024 Item 11
4/4/2024
4 The contributions from residents in Zone A and Zone B would be adjusted accordingly.

The weighting of those factors are generally equal, however, the scoring is not. The chart as presented in the report is correct. Refer to the “Special Notes on Weighting and Scoring Analysis” in the report for more detail.

7. How many vacant parcels there are in the assessment district area and, of those, how many are developable?
There are 12 vacant parcels in the proposed assessment district area as identified below.

The 1810 San Dieguito Drive vacant parcels are not currently depicted in the engineer’s report, but will be included in the draft to City Council. The vacant parcels would contribute to the assessment district if they develop during the assessment district period (next 20 years) and have this section of San Dieguito Drive as their only means of ingress/egress.  300-153-10-00 (Part of 1230 Oribia Road)
 300-060-16-00 (Part of 1420 Oribia Road)
 300-060-12-00 (Part of 1352 Oribia Road)
 299-200-74-00 (Part of 1439 Oribia Road)
 299-200-54-00 (Part of 1535 San Dieguito Drive)
 299-200-53-00 (Part of 1515 San Dieguito Drive)
 299-200-68-00 (Part of 1810 San Dieguito Drive)
 299-200-69-00 (Part of 1810 San Dieguito Drive)
 299-200-70-00 (Part of 1810 San Dieguito Drive)
 299-200-31-00 (Part of 1810 San Dieguito Drive)
 299-200-46-00 (Part of 1810 San Dieguito Drive)
Unfortunately, determining whether these lots are developable is not something the City can determine just through aerial views of the lot but is something the City would analyze as part of a development application. Some of the factors we would need to consider is if there is a Certificate of Compliance on file (when needed), location and amount of site dedicated to steep slopes, and available buildable area relative to standard zoning standards (setbacks, floor area ration (FAR), lot coverage, etc.). The only lot with previously approved permits to build appears to be 300-060-016-00 (1420 Oribia Road).

8. I live on a public street (Oribia Road) and pay taxes like everyone else, so why should I have to pay for any of the improvements on San Dieguito Drive? Per the Preliminary Draft Engineer’s Report, property owners on Oribia Road are being asked to pay the assessment because their property will receive special benefits from the proposed improvements. These special benefits are over and above any benefits property owners currently receive from the taxes they are currently paying and are unrelated to the public or private status of the street on which their property is located.

ATTACHMENT E 39 April 15, 2024 Item 11
4/4/2024
5 9. What is the Utility Undergrounding District X1A (Crest Canyon) Project required to replace as part of the road improvements?
The undergrounding project is only responsible for the resurfacing of 3 feet of asphalt per San Diego Regional Standard Drawings and is not responsible for replacement of an entirely deteriorated road. Standard maintenance for the road is currently the responsibility of the property owners as this road is not in the City’s public streets system.

10. What are the estimated overlapping costs between the San Dieguito Drive Improvements Project and the Utility Undergrounding District X1A (Crest Canyon)? There are only overlapping costs based on the construction cost estimate for the general contractors work. Pre-construction costs, construction management services, and geotechnical services will not be reduced. Of the construction costs, specifically the trench resurfacing (asphalt concrete pavement and aggregate base) for the joint trench is overlapping with the roadway improvements. The joint trench, regardless of the road improvements, still requires excavation to a minimum of 3 feet, which is lower than the roadway structural section of 9.5 inches. Furthermore, the estimate is also accounting for a ten-percent (10%) reduction in overlapping general construction costs (mobilization, traffic control, etc.). The San Dieguito Drive Improvements Project includes many more design elements than are a part of the undergrounding project.

11. The 12-inch existing corrugated metal pipe storm drain pipe at San Dieguito Drive/Racetrack View Drive is shown for replacement. Can the City evaluate whether the cost for of this pipe can be included as a credit toward the project if the City plans to repair this pipe regardless of the San Dieguito Drive Improvements Project?
The City is currently evaluating the condition of this pipe to determine if an additional credit to the project would be appropriate. If an additional related project offset is recommended by staff, it will be included in the City Council agenda report to be prepared for the April 15, 2024, City Council meeting.

ATTACHMENT E 40 April 15, 2024 Item 11
San Dieguito Drive – Final Design
9 Concrete
Asphalt
Hydroseed
Gravel
Driveway Replacement
Retaining Wall
Storm Drain Pipe Storm Drain Inlet
Storm Drain Inlet
Stormwater BMP
Stormwater BMP
Tree Removal
Storm Drain Pipe
1569 San Dieguito Drive
1604 San Dieguito Drive 1567 San Dieguito Drive
1561 San Dieguito Drive
ATTACHMENT F 41 April 15, 2024 Item 11
Retaining Wall at Intersection
10 Height = 2 to 4 Feet
ATTACHMENT F 42 April 15, 2024 Item 11
Retaining Wall Material
11 ATTACHMENT F 43 April 15, 2024 Item 11
Stormwater Quality BMP
12 ATTACHMENT F 44 April 15, 2024 Item 11
San Dieguito Drive – Final Design
13 Concrete
Asphalt
Hydroseed
Gravel
Driveway Replacement
No Parking Any Time
Park Off Pavement
1557 San Dieguito Drive 1535 San Dieguito Drive
1555 San Dieguito Drive 1525 San Dieguito Drive
ATTACHMENT F 45 April 15, 2024 Item 11
San Dieguito Drive – Final Design
14 Concrete
Asphalt
Hydroseed
Gravel
Driveway Replacement
Relocate Block Wall
No Parking Any Time
Park Off Pavement
1515 San Dieguito Drive 1441 San Dieguito Drive
1505 San Dieguito Drive
1445 San Dieguito Drive
ATTACHMENT F 46 April 15, 2024 Item 11
San Dieguito Drive – Final Design
15 Concrete
Asphalt
Hydroseed
Gravel
Driveway Replacement
Tree Removals No Parking Any Time
Park Off Pavement
1445 San Dieguito Drive
1439 San Dieguito Drive
1435 Oribia Road
ATTACHMENT F 47 April 15, 2024 Item 11
FY 2024‐25

City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
for the San Dieguito Drive Improvements Project
April 2024
Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972 and Article XIIID of the California Constitution
ATTACHMENT G 48 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Maintenance District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
Page i
City of Del Mar
City Council
David Druker, Mayor
Terry Gaasterland, Deputy Mayor
Tracy Martinez, Council Member
Dan Quirk, Council Member
Dwight Worden, Council Member
City Manager
Ashley Jones
Engineer of Work
SCI Consulting Group
ATTACHMENT G 49 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Maintenance District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
Page ii
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 4 Overview.................................................................................................................................... 4 Legislative Analysis .................................................................................................................... 5 Plans and Specifications ............................................................................................... 8 Description of Improvements.................................................................................................... 8 Fiscal Year 2024‐25 Estimate of Cost and Budget.......................................................... 9 Estimate of Costs ....................................................................................................................... 9 Method of Apportionment ......................................................................................... 11 Method of Apportionment ...................................................................................................... 11 Discussion of Benefit ............................................................................................................... 11 Special Benefit Factors to Parcels ........................................................................................... 12 Benefit Finding ........................................................................................................................ 14 General versus Special Benefit ................................................................................................ 14 Calculating General Benefit ..................................................................................................... 15 Zones of Benefit ...................................................................................................................... 18 Method of Assessment ............................................................................................................ 20 Duration of Assessment .......................................................................................................... 21 Appeals and Interpretation ..................................................................................................... 21 Assessment ................................................................................................................ 22 Assessment Diagram .................................................................................................. 24 Appendix A – Assessment Roll.................................................................................... 26 Appendix B – Project Cost Estimate ............................................................................ 27

ATTACHMENT G 50 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Maintenance District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25
Page iii
This page is intentionally blank
ATTACHMENT G 51 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25

Introduction
Overview
San Dieguito Drive (“the road”) is a private road with public access in the City of Del Mar (”City”) on Book 299, page 200 of the County of San Diego Assessor Parcel Maps. It is located between Racetrack View Drive and Oribia  Road and is  not  currently  part of  the  public  street  system  or maintained by the City.  However, there is a public easement that grants the City right‐of‐way for road and utility purposes (i.e. sewer, water, gas, power, and telephone lines).  In order to address public safety and adjacent homeowner concerns, there is a desire to convert this roadway and associated infrastructure from a private road into a public street which would then be part of the City’s street system and maintained by the City. Presently, San Dieguito Drive is a private road, which serves as the only access to homes located in the proposed Assessment District,  in very poor condition with cracking asphalt, many potholes, and fails to meet the most basic City road standards all of which impede access to private property and emergency access.

The existing  road is approximately  17  to  20 linear  feet wide and includes adjacent gravel/dirt shoulder areas that are currently used for parking. The asphalt is in a deteriorated condition and in  need  of  repair.    It  does  not  conform  to  the  County  of  San  Diego  (“County”)  Public  Road Standards  or  City  Council  Policy  114  –  Complete  Streets  (“Complete  Streets  Policy”).  The proximate  property  owners  served  by  the  road  are  responsible  for  its  maintenance  and improvements, but even after many years of discussions between the City and  these property owners, the road is still not in conformance with County standards nor City policy.

According to County standards, the road is classified as a Hillside Residential Street, which is the minimal  section available  for  residential  streets  such as San Dieguito Drive. The  required  road section standard consists of two 12‐foot driving lanes and an 8‐foot parking lane. However, the minimum necessary road width is 20 feet, or two 10‐foot driving lanes, to ensure passage for fire trucks. The minimum width for a parking lane is 7 feet.

Parking and walkways must also align with the City’s Complete Streets policy. In addition, due to the location and proximity  to  the San Dieguito Lagoon, it is important  to maintain  the coastal access which implements the City’s Local Coastal Program.

On September 6, 2022,  the City Council approved a  task order  for Michael Baker International (“MBI”)  to  conduct  a  Phase  1  Preliminary  Engineering  Assessment  to  better  understand  the condition of the road and to develop alternatives and costs for a capital improvement project to improve the road.

ATTACHMENT G 52 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25

The Preliminary Engineering Assessment was presented to area residents for feedback on July 13 and August 18, 2023. Four preliminary design concepts were prepared and discussions with area residents and staff resulted in a recommendation of a “Minimal Alternative” to improve the road to public standards without on‐street parking and sidewalks.

The Minimal Alternative includes a road with a standard centerline crown with 16 feet of asphalt and 3.5‐foot concrete rolled curbs for an improved width of 23 feet. This allows for 20 feet, or two 10‐foot driving lanes, to ensure passage for fire trucks.

The proposed project deviates from the Complete Streets Policy and requires approval from the City Council, which was obtained at the City Council meeting held on September 5, 2023. At this same meeting, the City Council approved a task order to retain MBI to proceed with Phase 2 road improvement  design,  construction  documents,  and  easement  acquisition  for  the  Minimal Alternative.

In order to mitigate the negative effects of the sub‐standard road infrastructure which includes reducing impediments to access during times of emergencies and to ensure the road’s long‐term sustainability, the City has proposed a cost‐sharing approach with the affected property owners whereby  the  City  would  agree  to  upgrade  the  road,  its  infrastructure,  and  then  transfer maintenance responsibilities to the City.

In order to fund this critical project, the City proposes to implement a Proposition 218‐compliant, balloted  benefit  assessment  district  that  would  include  all  specially  benefitted  parcels,  and  if approved  by  the  required  balloting,  would  place  assessments  based  upon  special  benefits  in proportion to the special benefit conferred on the affected district parcels and in relationship to the entirety of the costs of the proposed improvements. The City, would upon direction of the City  Council,  provide  funding  for  any  general  benefits  to  parcels  outside  of  the  proposed assessment district provided by the improvements, as separated and quantified in this Report. If approved by vote of the benefitted parcel owners and by the City, the assessment would pay for the construction of the Minimal Alternative improvements allowing for the road to be considered for inclusion in the City’s street system by the City Council for future maintenance by the City.

Legislative Analysis
Proposition 218 Compliance
On November 5, 1996, California voters approved Proposition 218 entitled "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," which added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the California Constitution. While its title refers only to  taxes,  Proposition  218  established  new  procedural  requirements  for  the  formation  and administration of assessment districts.

ATTACHMENT G 53 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25

In general, Proposition 218 stated that any existing assessment imposed exclusively to finance the capital costs or maintenance and operation expenses for sidewalks, streets, sewers, water, flood control, drainage systems, or vector control on or before November 6, 1996, would be exempt from  the  procedures  and  approval  process  of  Proposition  218,  unless  the  assessments  are increased. The San Dieguito Drive Improvement District would impose an assessment exclusively for  street maintenance and improvements  for  those  property  owners  (including  the  City)  that would be  specifically benefitted by  those Improvements  but only in  proportion  to  the general benefits provided to the public.

Proposition 218 defines “increased”, when applied to an assessment, as a decision by an agency that does either of the following:
 Increases any applicable rate used to calculate the assessment.  Revises the methodology by which the assessment is calculated, if that revision results in an increased amount being levied on any person or parcel.

The  formation methodology used  to calculate  the assessment may be levied in any given year allowing the assessment rate from the prior year to be increased based on corresponding changes in  the  Consumer  Price  Index  (“CPI”).  These  yearly  CPI  adjustments  do  not  typically  require Proposition 218 proceedings.

Assessment Process
This  Engineer’s  Report  (“Report”)  describes  the  San  Dieguito  Drive  Improvement  District  (the “Improvement  District”),  the  proposed  Improvement  District  boundaries,  a  description  of  the facilities, services, and public improvements to be improved and maintained by the assessments (the  "Improvements”),  and  the  proposed  assessments  for  Fiscal  Year  2024‐25  (the “Assessments”).

Following submittal of this Report to the City Council (the “Council”) for preliminary approval, the Council, by Resolution, may call for an assessment ballot proceeding and public hearing on the proposed establishment of Assessments for the provision of the Improvements.

Generally, if the Council so directs, a notice of assessment and assessment ballot will be mailed to  property  owners  within  the  Improvement  District  boundaries  who  receive  special  benefits distinct from general benefits from the Improvements. Such notice includes a description of the Improvements to be funded by the proposed Assessments, the proposed assessment amount for each parcel owned, and an explanation of the method of submitting a ballot on the Assessments.

Each  notice will include a  ballot  on which  the  property  owner will mark  his  or  her  support  or opposition to the proposed Assessments.

ATTACHMENT G 54 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25

After  the  ballots  are  mailed  to  property  owners,  a  minimum  45‐day  wait  period  is  imposed allowing each property owner to consider the formation of the Improvement District. Following this 45‐day time period, a public hearing will be held for the purpose of allowing the public and property owners to provide testimony regarding the proposed Assessment, and to submit their ballots.

Tabulation  of  the  returned  ballots  may  begin  at  the  conclusion  of  public  testimony.    It  is anticipated that the ballots may be tabulated on the same evening as the Public Hearing and that the  tabulation  results  may  be  announced  soon  after.  If  a  majority  of  property  owner  votes (weighted by the amount of the proposed assessment) in opposition to the Improvement District exceed those in favor, the Improvement District will not be formed and the assessments will not be imposed. Otherwise, the Council may take action to approve the levying of the assessments for  Fiscal  Year  2024‐25,  and  the  assessment  information  will  be  provided  to  the  County Auditor/Controller. The County Auditor/Controller will include the Assessments on the property tax roll for Fiscal Year 2024‐25.

ATTACHMENT G 55 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25

Plans and Specifications
Description of Improvements
If the assessment is approved, the following Improvements will be made to San Dieguito Drive:
 Remove the existing 17 to 20 feet of deteriorated road  Install a new road section with 16 feet of asphalt with aggregate base and 3.5‐foot concrete rolled curbs
 Provide a wider roadway for 20 feet of drivable surface  Improve drainage by installing a standard centerline crown, concrete rolled curbs, storm drain laterals, and storm drain inlet
 Install two modular wetlands (stormwater quality BMPs)  Install a retaining wall at the southwest corner of San Dieguito Drive and Racetrack View Drive to widen the roadway
 If possible, coordinate with the Utility Undergrounding District X1A (Crest Canyon) work which includes removal of poles and undergrounding of electrical and communications A detailed description of the Improvements has been developed by MBI and is available to the public at the City offices during normal business hours and via the April 3, 2024 presentation on the City’s website (https://www.delmar.ca.us/883/San‐Dieguito‐Drive‐Improvements‐Project).

ATTACHMENT G 56 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25

Fiscal Year 2024‐25 Estimate of Cost and Budget
Estimate of Costs
A detailed description of the costs of the Improvements is being developed by MBI and will be made available to the public by the City. The estimated costs of the improvements project is approximately $1.27 million. (See below and Appendix B for the estimate).

CITY OF DEL MAR
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Estimate of Cost
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Total
Budget
Costs
Existing Reserves $0
Capital Improvements Costs $1,269,039
Total Costs of Improvements $1,269,039
Less:

Contribution from City $888,239
Net Cost of Improvements (a) $380,800
Years of repayment (b) 20
Net Cost of Improvements per year to assessed parcels (a/b) $19,040 Assessments to Parcels per Year
Parcels ('c) Zone Rate (d)
Single Family Equivalent Benefit Units - Zone A (San Dieguito Drive)(c* 14 $846.22 $11,847 Single Family Equivalent Benefit Units - Zone B (Oribia Road) (c*d) 17 $423.11 $7,193 $19,040
Additional Benefit Analysis and Clarification
Parcels ('e) Zone Factor (f) Adjusted SFE
Single Family Equivalent Benefit Units - Zone A 14 1.00 14.00 Single Family Equivalent Benefit Units - Zone B 17 0.50 8.50 SFE Units 22.50
Adjusted SFEs Project Costs
Benefit received per SFE 22.50 $1,269,039 $56,402
$ Benefit/SFE Repaymnt Years
Benefit received per SFE per year $56,402 20.00 $2,820
ATTACHMENT G 57 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25

Special Discussion of Proposed City Contribution
The analysis required to support a Proposition 218‐compliant Engineer’s Report must “separate and quantify” any general benefits resulting from the proposed improvements. The parcels within the proposed Improvement District may only be assessed  for  the special benefits, not general benefits.  Most improvements generate both special benefits and general benefits, and therefore, most  Improvement  Districts  require  another,  non‐assessment,  funding  sources  to  fund  the general benefits – typically the governing agency.

For this proposed Improvement District, it is required that another funding source,  (in this case, the City), pay at least for the general benefits which have been quantified to be 54% of the total benefit. (Again, see the next section for more details on this calculation.) Because of the long‐standing commitment and history of the proposed Improvement District, it has been proposed that the City additionally absorb proportional costs above the 54%, for pre‐ construction  services  (preliminary  engineering  assessment,  engineering  design,  assessment engineering services, and environmental) at the same rate as construction costs.  As a result, the City is proposing to contribute up to 70% ($888,239 of the total $1,269,039) of the total costs, which must be considered and approved by the Del Mar City Council.

ATTACHMENT G 58 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25

Method of Apportionment
Method of Apportionment
The  methodology  for  the  Improvement  District  assumes  that  all  benefited  parcels  along  San Dieguito Drive and Oribia Road will be included in the District because San Dieguito Drive is the only route of ingress and egress. The method used for apportioning the assessment is based upon the proportional special benefits conferred to the properties over and above the general benefits conferred  to  real  property  in  the  Improvement  District  or  to  the  general  public.  Each  special benefit is calculated for each parcel in the Improvement District using the following factors:

1. Identification of all special benefit factors and all general benefits derived from the Improvements.

2. Calculation of the proportion of these benefits that are general.

3. Determination  of  the  relative  special  benefit  within  different  areas  within  the Improvement District.

4. Determination of the relative special benefit per property type

5. Calculation of the specific assessment for each individual parcel based in proportion to  the  special  benefit  it  receives  from  the  Improvements.  The  special  benefits consider the location of the parcels in relation to the special benefits, property type, property characteristics, improvements on property and other supporting attributes.

Discussion of Benefit
Assessments can only be levied based on the special benefits provided to each property. General benefits  are  funded  through  other  means.  This  approach  is  found  in  Section  22573  of  the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 states:
"The  net  amount  to  be  assessed  upon  lands  within  an  assessment  district  may  be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements."
“The determination of whether or not a lot or parcel will benefit from the improvements shall be made pursuant  to  the Improvement Act of 1911  (Division 7  (commencing with Section 5000)) [of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California].” ATTACHMENT G 59 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25

Proposition  218,  as  codified  in  Article  XIIID  of  the  California  Constitution,  confirmed  that assessments must be based on the special benefits provided to each parcel and that the value of the  special  benefits  must  reasonably  relate  to  the  assessment  imposed.  To  be  clear,  special benefits are in proportion to the special benefit conferred on the affected district parcels and in relationship to the entirety of the costs of the proposed improvements. "No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel." General  public  benefits  are  not  included  in  the  assessment  because  they  do  not  provide  the property owner with any particular and distinct benefit.

Special Benefit Factors to Parcels
The Special Benefits from the Improvements are listed below:

Special Improvements to Property Owners’ Own Safety and Reduction in Damage to Private Property
As  San Dieguito Drive  continues  to  deteriorate  from a  lack  of maintenance  it will  continue  to impede  the  ability  of emergency equipment  to  respond  to  private  property  from  house  fires, wildfires,  or  other  hazard  conditions.  The  current  private  road  conditions  contain  surface conditions  that  may  result  in  trip  hazards  and  has  and  will  continue  to  damage  bicycles, motorcycles,  cars, and  other  vehicles.  Rough  road  surfaces may  cause  vehicles  to  swerve and travel in unpredictable ways that may result in collisions or other accidents. The Improvements, therefore, provide an important, valuable, and desirable improvement  to  the property owners and their property.

Private Property Improved Emergency Response and Home Use  Access As noted above, the current poor road conditions may impede efficient evacuation from private homes along the Road during times of emergencies. The Improvements would fix the deteriorated road surface and widen the road to public standards, resulting in improved evacuation conditions and  ensure  better  access  to  private  homes  when  ambulances,  police,    or  other  emergency response is required by the private homeowner. The improvements also aid in private deliveries to  the  homes  and  provide  better  access  for  guests  visiting  the  residents.  Therefore,  the assessments  provide  improvements  that  provide  a  direct  advantage  and  special  benefit  to properties contained in the Improvement District.

ATTACHMENT G 60 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25

Improved Emergency Access for Emergency Vehicles to Parcels Emergency vehicles and personnel must use San Dieguito Drive to reach private properties in the Improvement District. The deteriorated condition of San Dieguito Drive makes it much harder for large vehicles, such as fire apparatus, to navigate the Road safely and quickly.

The  Improvements  would  fix  the  deteriorated  road  surface  and  widen  the  road  to  public standards,  resulting  in  improved  ingress  conditions  for  emergency  vehicles  and  personnel.

Therefore, the assessments provide Improvements that provide a direct advantage and special benefit to property in the Improvement District.

Improved Wildland Fire Safety and Access
Like many communities in California, the City of Del Mar is at elevated risk of wildland fires. The proposed assessment District is in an area designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. In the  case  of  a  local  wildland  fire,  the  need  for  safe  and  speedy  routes  of  egress  as  well  as emergency vehicle ingress are important. More detailed information is provided in the City’s Crest Canyon Evacuation Plan.

The  Improvements  would  widen  San  Dieguito  Drive  and  improve  the  condition  of  the  road, making it a safer and speedier route of ingress and egress than it is at the present time. Therefore, the assessments provide Improvements  that provide a direct advantage and special benefit  to property in the Improvement District through improved wildland fire safety. Should the nearby hillsides experience a wildfire condition, the first to be impacted will be the residents living along the Road and as a result, evacuation and fire response will be impacted by the current conditions of  the  Road.  The  Improvements  will  particularly  help  preserve  properties  during  wildfire conditions  and  rapid  access  of  emergency  equipment  could  help  the  general  public  from  the wildfire spreading to other City communities.

Improved Drainage for Parcels
The existing roadway infrastructure does not include adequate drainage facilities. Uncontrolled stormwater and  urban  runoff, and associated local  flooding, indirectly and  directly may  cause injuries,  damage  to  property,  and  adversely  impact  the  residents  living  along  the  Road.  The proposed improvements include upgrades to stormwater drainage which will reduce the risk of flood damage to the private properties benefited by the Assessment District.

ATTACHMENT G 61 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25

Improved Views and Beautification
The current deteriorated roadway infrastructure creates dust which covers the landscaping and windows of the homes nearby, as well as an unsightly view from those homes and for everyone who travels along the road. The Improvements, by replacing the deteriorated road with one which is new and smooth, provides improved views to properties with direct line‐of‐sight as well as other local  properties  which  benefit  from  improved  views  when  the  road  is  used.  Therefore,  the improved  and  protected  views  provided  by  the  improvements  are  another  direct  and  distinct advantage that is uniquely conferred upon each property owner in the Improvement District.

Benefit Finding
In summary, real properties that are located within the boundaries of the proposed Improvement District along the private road are distinctly and directly benefited from the improvements. These benefits  include  but  are  not  limited  to  a  reduction  in  damage  to  personal  and  real  property, enhanced  emergency  evacuation,  improved  emergency  access  during  fires,  earthquakes  and wildland  fire  events,  improved  drainage,  and  improved  views  and  beautification.  The Improvements are specifically designed to serve local properties within the Improvement District, not other properties, or members of the general public.

General versus Special Benefit
Article XIIIC of the California Constitution requires cities to “separate the general benefits from the  special  benefits  conferred  on  a  parcel.”  The  rationale  for separating  special  and  general benefits is to ensure that property owners subject to the benefit assessment are not also paying for general benefits conferred to the public. The assessment may fund special benefits but not general benefits. Accordingly, a separate estimate of the special and general benefits are provided in this section. Total benefits are often expressed by:

There is no widely accepted or statutory formula for general benefit.  However, general benefits are benefits from improvements or services that are not special in nature, are not “particular and distinct” and are not “over and above” benefits received by other properties. General benefits have been described by an indirect, derivative advantage and are not necessarily proximate to the improvements.

Total
Benefit =
General
Benefit + Special Benefit
ATTACHMENT G 62 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25

The  starting  point  for  evaluating  general  and  special  benefits  is  the  current,  baseline  level  of service.  The  assessment  is  intended  to  fund  Improvements  “over  and  above”  this  general, baseline level and the general benefits estimated in this section are over and above the baseline.

This is expressed by:

General
Benefit
=
Benefit to Real
Property Outside
the Improvement
District
+
Benefit to Real Property
Inside the Improvement
District that is Indirect and
Derivative
+
Benefit to
the Public
at Large
The Assessments described in this Report are intended to fund improvements that are directly and particular to the special benefits conveyed to the homeowners. Therefore, a basis has been established for minimal or zero general benefits from the Assessments.

Calculating General Benefit
In this section, the general benefit is liberally estimated and described, and then budgeted so that it is funded by sources other than the assessment.

Benefit to Property Outside but Proximate to the Improvement District Here,  properties  located  within  the  Improvement  District  receive  special  benefits  from  the improvements because those properties uniquely adjoin the Improvements and because these Improvements are along a private road not enjoyed by the public at large. As San Dieguito Drive is not a public thoroughfare; it is primarily used to gain access to those homes located within the Improvement District.

Additionally, the southern portion of San Dieguito Drive leads only to the parcels on Oribia Road which are also included in the Improvement District, while the northern portion leads to a portion of Racetrack View Drive; however, this area  contains no homes or other structures within the City of Del Mar. On the immediate north side of Racetrack View Drive is San Dieguito Lagoon, which is unbuildable.

Therefore, in a typical analysis based on these geographic conditions, it would be concluded that the Improvements do not provide special benefits to properties outside the Improvement District. (i.e.  like  in  a  typical  utility  undergrounding  district  in  which  the  parcels  with  utilities  that  are undergrounded receive special benefit while those adjacent parcels do not and are not assessed.) ATTACHMENT G 63 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25

However,  San  Dieguito  Drive  provides  an  important  access‐related  asset  for  the  control  of wildland  fires and other emergencies,  that provide  benefit  to parcels outside of  the proposed Improvement District. Therefore, additional general benefit analysis is warranted. Wildland fires, and the associated smoke and embers, do not stay within defined boundaries, and the access, special infrastructure (including special fire hydrants), location and topography of San Dieguito Drive provides an important facility for the protection of parcels that are outside, but relatively near the Improvement District.  In other words, there are certainly parcels outside of the proposed Improvement  District  that  will  receive  improved  wildland  fire  protection  benefits  that  will  be provided by the proposed Improvements.

In this case, the Engineer of record is tasked with quantifying the relative (special) benefit received from the Improvements to the parcels within the Improvement District versus relative (general) benefit to the parcels outside, but proximate to, the Improvement District. It is clear the benefit diminishes as distance from the Improvements increases, but a fair and accurate proportion must be established.

Various analyses were considered and the chosen analytical approach relies on the work done in support  of  the  City  Fire  Department’s  Crest  Canyon  Evacuation  Plan  from  March  7,  2022, (Microsoft Word ‐ Agenda Report_Wildfire Evacuation Plan final draft.docx (delmar.ca.us)). In this plan, a regional analysis of the City is described including, and most relevantly, Population Zones (Figure 1 on page 5) and Scenario B Evacuation (Figure 5 on page 18). The Scenario B Evacuation analysis focuses on a wildland fire approaching from the east through Crest Canyon Park toward the San Dieguito Drive area. Both figures include a zone with proposed Improvement District and surrounding affected areas – labeled Zone F in Figure 1. Review of the report indicates that Zone F includes 89 homes including  the 31 already in  the proposed Improvement District. Of  the 89 homes in Zone F, 27 of the homes are on Racetrack View Drive and east of San Dieguito Drive.

Since wildland fires in this area move from east to west, these 27 homes receive no benefit from the proposed improvements to San Dieguito Drive.

Therefore, the remaining 62 homes receive benefit from the improvements. Of these, 31 homes are in the proposed Improvement District and 31 homes are outside of it. As a result, 50% of the benefit  (31 of 62) is special benefit, and 50%  (100% total benefit minus 50% special benefit) is general benefit.

Benefit to Property Inside the District that is Indirect and Derivative The “indirect and derivative” benefit to property within the proposed Improvement District may seem difficult to calculate given the particular facts of each Improvement District. However, the proposed improvements to San Dieguito Drive are clearly “over and above” and “particular and distinct” when compared with the baseline level of service and the unique proximity, access and views  of  the  Improvements  enjoyed  by  benefiting  properties  in  the  proposed  Improvement District. Hence, no allowance for general benefit that is indirect or derivative is assigned.

ATTACHMENT G 64 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25

Benefit to Property to the Public at Large
The general benefit to the public at large can be estimated by the proportionate amount of time that San Dieguito Drive is used by individuals who are not property owners; or others directly linked  to  property  owners  such as  visitors,  delivery  drivers,  landscaping  services,  construction personnel, employees, or other service providers, in the Improvement District1 .

Surveys of park and recreation facility usage conducted by SCI Consulting Group have found that less than 4% of a park district’s facility usage is by those who do not live or work within District boundaries. Although  there is  no  park available  to  the  public within  the Improvement District boundaries to draw the general public to drive down San Dieguito Drive, some members of the public may use it to access the lagoon and Crest Canyon Park or its trails. Based on these facts, it is estimated that less than 4% of the users of the road are members of the general public. (Similar analyses  of  the  percentage  of  daily  car  trips  in  residential  areas  not  associated  with  local properties confirms the 4%.) Further, when people outside the Improvement District use the road, they diminish the availability of the road for people within the Improvement District. Therefore, liberally 4% of general benefits are allocated for people within the Improvement District.

This estimate is supported by the fact that there are occasional users of San Dieguito Drive who park for the fairgrounds and/or beach, and for birdwatchers Combining  these  measures  of  general  benefits,  we  find  that  54%  of  the  benefits  from  the Improvements are general benefits  to  the public at large and/or property in  the Improvement District.

Total General Benefits
Using a sum of these measures of general benefit, we find that approximately 54% of the benefits conferred by the Improvements may be general in nature and should be funded by sources other than the Assessment.
1 .  When San Dieguito Drive is used by those individuals, the facilities are not providing benefit to property within the Improvement District.  Use under these circumstances is a measure of general benefit. For example, a non‐resident who is drawn to use the road to provide services to a property in the Improvement District would provide special benefit to that property as a result of his or her use of the Improvements.  Conversely, one who uses road but does not provide any services within the Improvement District boundaries does not provide special benefits to any property and is considered to be a measure of the general benefits.

ATTACHMENT G 65 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25

The City’s total budget for the Improvements is $1.27 million. Of this total budget amount, the City is proposing to contribute up to $888,239, or 70% of the cost, which is significantly more than the required 54% amount attributable to the general benefits resulting from the Improvements.

Again, to be clear, this analysis supports the requirement that at least 54% of the revenue to pay for the Improvements must come from a source other than this assessment, but it can be more.

In this case, the City is proposing to exceed this requirement and financially contribute up to 70% of the costs, which must be considered and approved by the Del Mar City Council.

Zones of Benefit
The Improvements will be made  to San Dieguito Drive and are uniformly distributed along  the length of the road. The parcels along San Dieguito Drive are designated as Zone of Benefit “A” or “Zone A."  The special benefit is distributed uniformly within Zone A because the Improvements are uniformly distributed along the road.

The Improvement District also includes properties on Oribia Road that are not on San Dieguito Drive but use it as the primary route for ingress and egress. These properties are designated as Zone of Benefit "B" or "Zone B". Like Zone A, the special benefit is distributed uniformly within Zone B. Like  the  residents along San Dieguito Drive,  the  residents along Oribia Road enjoy  the same special benefits as listed above. Each Oribia Road resident will have improved access  for emergency  response and  private  use access,  reduction in  property  damage  from  flooding and impacts  to  their  private  vehicles,  better  private  delivery  to  their  homes, and  safer evacuation access during times of emergencies.

The Improvements related to some of the special benefits in Zone B are generally equal to those in Zone A; however, some special benefits, such as drainage and views, are lower. A Weighting and Scoring Analysis was conducted to determine the relative distribution of the special benefit in Zone A versus Zone B, and is shown in the Table below:

General Benefit =

50.0 %  (Outside the district)

0.0 %   (Indirect and derivative)
+     4.0 %  (Public at Large)
=     54.0 %          (Total General Benefit)
ATTACHMENT G 66 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25

Zone
Safety/
Damage Evacuation
Emergency
Access
Wildland
Fire Drainage
Views and
Beautification
Normalized
Special
Benefit
Weighting: 100% 100% 100% 100% 75% 50%
A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00
B 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.1 0.1 0.50
Therefore, the Zone B parcels receive 50% of the special benefit of Zone A parcels.

Special Notes on Weighting and Scoring Analysis
The six special benefits identified above (Improvement to Public Safety and Reduction in Damage to Property; Improved Emergency Evacuation Access; Improved Emergency Access for Emergency Vehicles;  Improved  Wildland  Fire  Safety;  Improved  Drainage;  and  Improved  Views  and Beautification) have been given a weight and a score for each zone. This Weighting and Scoring Analysis approach is widely used to calculate and quantify values in multi‐attribute and qualitative environments, and is commonly used for Proposition 218‐compliant Engineer’s Reports.

The primary special benefits resulting from the proposed Improvements include Improvement to Public  Safety  and  Reduction  in  Damage  to  Property;  Improved  Emergency  Evacuation  Access; Improved  Emergency  Access  for  Emergency  Vehicles;  and Improved Wildland  Fire  Safety,  and these attributes are very significant in the evaluation of the overall utility of the parcels. And to be clear, these primary special benefits to the parcels in the proposed Improvement District are over and above the general benefits conferred. Thus, they have been assigned a full weighting of 100%.  Improved Drainage is a less significant special benefit and has been assigned a weight of 75%. Views and Beautification, while important, is less significant in its effect on the overall utility of each parcel, so it has been assigned only a 50% weighting.

Since  the  relative  effect  and  value  of  all  these  6  special  benefits  is  directly  proportional  to proximity  (with  closer  proximity  resulting  in  higher  benefit),  and all  the  parcels  in Zone  A are adjacent to the improvements, they have been given a full score of 1 in Zone A.

The scoring for Zone B requires more analysis and more discussion. Safety/Damage, Evacuation, and Emergency Access attributes  require close proximity  to  receive a  full  score, and  receive a lower score as the proximity decreases.  The proposed improvements (including road widening, improved pavement quality and capacity, improved drainage, etc.) provide a higher level of direct access improvement to the Zone A parcels.  For example, heavy emergency equipment can get closer to a specific home in Zone A, and maneuver better and turn better along San Dieguito Drive resulting from the proposed improvements in ways that are not conferred on the Zone B parcels.

Of  course,  the  Safety/Damage,  Evacuation,  and  Emergency  Access  special  benefits  are comprehensively  conferred  to  Zone  B  parcels,  but  not  as  much,  because  there  are  not improvements proximate to specific houses.

ATTACHMENT G 67 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25

Hence, because the proposed Improvements are not as proximate to Zone B, and don’t include the house‐specific direct access improvements, these three special benefits have been assigned a  score  of  0.5  in  Zone  B.  However,  the  beneficial  effect  from  the  proposed  Improvements  to Improved  Wildland  Fire  Safety  are  potentially  more  widespread  (including  smoke  and  ember effective distances), and have less of direct linkage to nearby proximity, so this attribute has been scored a full 1 for both Zone A and Zone B. On the other hand, drainage and views are only very minimally improved for Zone B resulting in the proposed Improvements to San Dieguito Drive, so they have been scored 0.1.

Each parcel within the Improvement District has been shown to receive a direct benefit, and the District’s boundaries have been narrowly drawn to include only parcels that specifically benefit from  the assessment. Because  the benefits are spread across  the Improvement District by  the narrowly drawn zones, the allocations of the assessments to each property owner has a direct relationship to the locality of the improvement standard.

Method of Assessment
As stated, the first step in apportioning assessments is to determine the relative special benefit conveyed  to each  property. This process involves determining  the  relative benefit  received by each property in relation to a single‐family home, or, in other words, on the basis of Single Family Equivalents  (“SFE”).  This  SFE  methodology  is  commonly  used  to  distribute  assessments  in proportion to estimated special benefit and is generally recognized as providing the basis for a fair and appropriate distribution of assessments. For the purposes of this Report, all properties are designated with an SFE value, defined as each property’s relative benefit in relation to a single‐ family home located on a parcel. For  reference,  the "benchmark" property is  the single‐family detached dwelling that is one Single Family Equivalent or one SFE.

A qualifying assessment provides specific Improvements conferred directly to properties located in the proposed Improvement District. Here, the Improvement District includes only two types of properties: Single family homes and vacant land. Each single‐family home is assigned one SFE.

Vacant  property  does  not  receive  any  special  benefits  from  the  proposed  Improvements; accordingly, vacant parcels are not assigned an SFE value. If any of the currently vacant parcels are developed while  this Improvement District is in effect,  then  this proposed assessment will apply to that newly developed parcel beginning in the fiscal year it is developed, provided that San Dieguito Drive is that property’s means of ingress and egress.

ATTACHMENT G 68 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25

Duration of Assessment
The City Council can elect to spread the costs of these Improvements over a period of years. This reduces the annual cost burden to each individual property owner. In addition, the City wants to limit the amount of time it must wait to recoup its costs to a reasonable period of time. Therefore, it  is  recommended  that  the  improvement  costs  be  spread  over  a  twenty‐year  period  of  time commencing in fiscal year 2024‐2025. Property owners will also be given the opportunity to pay the entire amount of  the proposed 20‐year assessment  for  their property  to  the City up  front rather than paying it off over 20 years on their property tax bill.

Appeals and Interpretation
Property owners have a right  to appeal  the assessment determination. A property owner who feels  that  the  assessment  levied  against  their  property  is  in  error  (as  a  result  of  incorrect information) may  file a written appeal  to  the City Manager or  their appointee. The  filing of an appeal is limited to the current assessment year, or if filed prior to July 1, for the upcoming fiscal year.

Upon  the  filing of any such appeal,  the City Manager will promptly review  the appeal and any information provided by the property owner. If the City Manager determines based on reasonable viable evidence that the assessment should be modified, the appropriate changes may be made.

If any such changes are approved after  the assessment roll has been  filed with  the County  for collection,  the  City  Manager  may  authorize  a  refund  to  the  property  owner  of  the  approved reduction. Any dispute over the decision of the City Manager or their designee may be appealed to the City Council subject to DMMC Section 1.12.010.

ATTACHMENT G 69 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25

Assessment
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2024 the City Council of the City of Del Mar passed a Resolution (which shall be incorporated by reference) that directed the undersigned Engineer of Work to prepare and file the above stated San Dieguito Drive proposed Improvement District report and the report provided  an estimate of costs, a map diagram  for the proposed Improvement District, and an assessment of  the estimated costs of  the Improvements  to be imposed on all parcels  that are specially benefitted within the Improvement District; and NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned engineer, by the direction provided by the City Council of the City  of Del Mar,  hereby  recommend  the  following  assessments  to support  the  funding  of  the Improvement District.

The  Assessment  Diagram  is  attached  and  incorporated  into  this  report  which  provides  the boundaries of the Improvement District. Each parcel is identified by its Assessor Parcel Number that appears on the San Diego County Property Assessment Roll.

I  have  assessed  and  approved  the  net  amount  of  the  costs  of  the  Improvements,  including incidental costs to each benefited parcel within the Improvement District. These assessments are in accordance with the special benefits conveyed to each parcel from the Improvements that have been  described  in  the  “Estimate  of  Costs” and  the  “Method  of  Assessment”  contained  in  this report.

The  assessments  have  been  allocated  to  those  parcels  within  Improvement  District  in  direct proportion to the special benefits conveyed to each property.

Each parcel or lot of land is described in the Assessment Roll by reference to its parcel number as shown on the Assessor's Maps of the County of San Diego.

ATTACHMENT G 70 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25

I hereby place opposite the Assessor Parcel Number for each parcel or lot within the Assessment Roll, the amount of the assessment for the fiscal year 2024‐25 for each parcel or lot of land within said San Dieguito Drive Improvement District.

Dated: April 9, 2024
Engineer of Work

By: ____________________________
John W. Bliss, License No. C052091
ATTACHMENT G 71 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25

Assessment Diagram
The boundaries of  the San Dieguito Drive Improvement District are displayed on  the  following Assessment Diagram, with Zone A in blue and Zone B in pink.

ATTACHMENT G 72 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25

Below  is  a  copy  of  the  Improvement  District  map  with  each  parcel  numbered  to  match  the numbers in the Assessment Roll on the next page.

ATTACHMENT G 73 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25

Appendix A – Assessment Roll
An  Assessment  Roll  (a  listing  of  all  parcels  assessed  within  the  Improvement  District  and  the amount of the assessment) is shown below.

Each lot  or  parcel listed  on  the Assessment  Roll is  shown and illustrated on  the latest County Assessor records and these records are, by reference made part of this report. These records shall govern for all details concerning the description of the lots or parcels.

ATTACHMENT G 74 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
San Dieguito Drive Improvement District
Engineer’s Report FY 2024‐25

Appendix B – Project Cost Estimate
Below are the estimated costs for the improvement project.

Pre-Construction Costs
Phase 1 Engineering (MBI) $ 64,500
Phase 2 Engineering (MBI) $ 165,797
Assessment Engineering (SCI) $ 41,500
CEQA (MBI) $ 15,485
Subtotal $ 287,282
Construction Costs
Construction Estimate $ 876,846
Construction Estimate Credit ($87,067)
Construction Management Services $ 95,000
Geotechnical Services $ 18,000
Subtotal $ 902,779
Project Contingency* $ 78,978
TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE $ 1,269,039
*10% of Construction Estimate minus Construction Estimate Credit for an additional savings of $8,707 and total project savings of $95,774.

ATTACHMENT G 75 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar

SAN DIEGUITO DRIVE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COSTS
Date: 3/20/2024
Item Description
Total
Quantity Unit Unit Price Extension
1 Mobilization, Demobilization and Cleanup 1 LS $40,000.00 $40,000.00 2 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000.00
3 Traffic Control Implementation and Construction Staging 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00 4 Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Erosion Control (Includes SWPPP Development & Implementation and Erosion Control)
1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00
5 Construction Survey Staking 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 6 Record Drawing (As-Builts) 1 LS $4,500.00 $4,500.00
Subtotal= $169,500.00
7 Remove Existing AC Pavement Section. 4.5" Minimum 20163 SF $3.50 $70,570.50 8 Remove and Reinstall Mailbox 10 EA $350.00 $3,500.00
9 Remove Existing AC Berm / Dike / Curb 40 LF $3.00 $120.00 10 Remove and Reinstall Wooden Fence 100 LF $25.00 $2,500.00 11 Remove and Reinstall Landscaping Block Wall 140 LF $80.00 $11,200.00 12 Remove Storm Drain Curb Inlet Structure 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000.00 13 Adjust Water Vault to Finish Grade 1 EA $1,500.00 $1,500.00 14 Adjust Water Valve to Finish Grade 7 EA $500.00 $3,500.00 15 Adjust Water Meter Box to Finish Grade 1 EA $610.00 $610.00 16 Adjust Gas Valve to Finish Grade 1 EA $500.00 $500.00 17 Irrigation Relocation 1 LS $12,000.00 $12,000.00
Subtotal= $116,000.50
18 Site Grading (Export) 220 CY $58.00 $12,760.00
19 Remedial Grading 1,194 CY $50.00 $59,693.50
Subtotal= $72,453.50
20 Asphalt Concrete (AC) Pavement 453 TN $170.00 $77,010.00 21 Aggregate Base (AB) 375 CY $50.00 $18,750.00
22 Gravel Parking Area (4" thick) 1924 SF $9.00 $17,316.00 23 Rolled Curb, Type B, per SDRSD G-4A 1697 LF $50.00 $84,850.00 24 Residential Concrete Driveway 678 SF $17.00 $11,526.00 25 Asphalt Concrete Driveway 1505 SF $8.00 $12,040.00
26 Type G Curb and Gutter per SDRSD G-02 75 LF $45.00 $3,375.00 27 Type H Curb and Gutter per SDRSD G-02 235 LF $45.00 $10,575.00 28 6" Curb per SDRSD G-01 64 LF $45.00 $2,880.00
29 Type 6 Masonry Retaining Wall 2.5 CY $1,335.00 $3,337.50 Subtotal= $241,659.50
30 18” RCP Storm Drain 16 LF $450.00 $7,321.50
31 24” RCP Storm Drain 41 LF $650.00 $26,390.00
32 Curb Inlet, Type 'C', Per SDRSD D-03A 2 EA $10,500.00 $21,000.00 33 Modular Wetland 2 EA $45,000.00 $90,000.00
34 Splash Pad 1 EA $250.00 $250.00
Subtotal= $144,961.50
35 Traffic Sign and Post 9 EA $600.00 $5,400.00
36 Striping 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00
37 Caltrans Midwest Railing 14 LF $250.00 $3,500.00
Subtotal= $10,900.00
38 Hydroseed 1 LS $7,000.00 $7,000.00
Subtotal= $7,000.00
Sub-Total= $762,475.00
Contingency $114,371
Total with Contingency $876,846
Landscaping / Erosion Control Improvements
15%
General
Removals, Relocations, and Adjustments Improvements
Earthwork
Surface Improvements
Drainage Improvements
Traffic Improvements
ATTACHMENT H 76 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
Date: 4/8/2024
Item
Total
Quantity Unit Unit Price Extension
1 10% LS $40,000.00 $4,000.00
2 10% LS $35,000.00 $3,500.00
3 10% LS $65,000.00 $6,500.00
4 10% LS $10,000.00 $1,000.00
5 10% LS $15,000.00 $1,500.00
6 10% LS $4,500.00 $450.00
7 4223 SF $3.50 $14,780.50
20 89 TN $170.00 $15,130.00
21 44 CY $50.00 $2,200.00
31 41 LF $650.00 $26,650.00
Subtotal= $75,710.50
Contingency $11,357
$87,067
Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Erosion Control (Includes SWPPP Development & Implementation and Erosion Control)
Description
Construction Estimate Credit
Mobilization, Demobilization and Cleanup
Clearing and Grubbing
Traffic Control Implementation and Construction Staging Total with Contingency
Construction Survey Staking
Record Drawing (As-Builts)
Remove Existing AC Pavement Section. 4.5" Minimum
Asphalt Concrete (AC) Pavement
Aggregate Base (AB)
24” RCP Storm Drain
15%
ATTACHMENT I 77 April 15, 2024 Item 11
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
50257347.1/006583.00005
TO: City Council
FROM: Mayor Dave Druker and Council Member Tracy Martinez Via Irma Rodriguez Moisa, Special Counsel
DATE: April 15, 2024
SUBJECT: Council Consideration to Censure Council Member Daniel Quirk for Personal Violations of the Brown Act, City Council Policies, Del Mar Municipal Code, and Related Misconduct
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Mayor Dave Druker and Council Member Tracy Martinez recommend that the City Council consider adoption of a Resolution (Attachment A) censuring Council Member Daniel Quirk for violations of the Brown Act, City Council Policies, Del Mar City Municipal Code, and related misconduct.

CITY STANDARDS DEFINING ROLES FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITY MANAGER:

The City of Del Mar follows the Council-Manager form of government, in which the City Council's role is to set policy and not to engage in daily operational or administrative activities, including direction of City employees and/or consultants, while the City Manager’s role is to implement the policy set by the Council and to oversee daily operations of the City. While each Council Member brings their own points of views on policy subjects, ultimate decisions need to be discussed and decided by the whole Council at publicly noticed meetings. Individual Council Members do not make policy or direct the City Manager on how to carry out those policies or manage the affairs of the City. It remains critical for elected Council Members and the City Manager to adhere to these roles.

To clarify the contours and limits of these roles, on September 7, 2021, the City Council and City Manager agreed to adopt “Del Mar City Council and City Manager Guiding Principles”, which set clearly defined standards on the roles of Council Members and the City Manager (Attachment B). For instance, Council Members are directed to “limit direct contacts with City staff (other than the Manager or City Attorney) regarding matters of City business and requests for information” as well as refrain from “giving direction or assign[ing] work to City staff on their own.” The City sought to highlight the importance of this division of responsibilities by explicitly incorporating these standards into Section 5 of the Employment Contract, dated December 13, 2021, between City Manager Ashley Jones and the City (Attachment C). As a result of this inclusion, the Council agreed that the Del Mar City Council and City Manager Guiding Principles were a material part of the Employment Agreement with Ms. Jones.
1 April 15, 2024 Item 12
City Council Agenda Report
Consideration to Censure Council Member Daniel Quirk
April 15, 2024

The City Council has also adopted a variety of policies that set expectations for the roles of Council Members, and standards regulating how Council Members interact with the City Manager, City staff, outside consultants, and members of the public. Relevant City Council Policies include Council Policy 102 – Direction to the City Manager (Attachment D); Council Policy 202 – Expectations of Council Liaisons to City Advisory Committees and of Council Representatives to Outside Agencies (Attachment E); Council Policy 301 – Request by Members of City Council to Place an Item on a City Council Agenda (Attachment F); and Council Policy 314 – Public Comment that Discloses Closed Session Information (Attachment G).

Finally, Section 2.24.010 of the Del Mar Municipal Code sets expectations on how the City Council interacts with the administration of the City, namely exclusively through the City Manager (Attachment H).

COMPLAINTS AND RETENTION OF OUTSIDE INVESTIGATOR:

On or about January 5, 2023, City Manager Ashley Jones informed City Attorney Leslie Devaney that Council Member Daniel Quirk had engaged in a pattern of communications with her, other City staff, and outside consultants that City Manager Ashley Jones believed violated City Council Policies, Del Mar City Council and City Manager Guiding Principles, and her Employment Agreement. The matter was set for a Closed Session of the City Council on January 9, 2023, and the Council was notified about City Manager Ashley Jones’ claims. The Council unanimously concluded that City Manager Ashley Jones was to notify the Council in Closed Session if Council Member Daniel Quirk continued to engage in such communications to assess if corrective action were warranted, including a potential censure.

On or about July 23, 2023, City Manager Ashley Jones sent an email to City Attorney Leslie Devaney listing seven types of behavior in which Council Member Daniel Quirk had been consistently engaging towards her, other City staff, and outside consultants since 2021. This matter was discussed in Closed Session on July 24, 2023.

On or about August 2, 2023, City Manager Ashley Jones sent a confidential memorandum to City Attorney Leslie Devaney advising that a member of the public had reported that Council Member Daniel Quirk had disclosed confidential information learned during a Closed Session of the Council to that member of the public. City Manager Ashley Jones also advised City Attorney Leslie Devaney that Council Member Daniel Quirk had allegedly stated to City staff and outside consultants that he was “going after” City Manager Ashley Jones to remove her from City employment. These matters were discussed in Closed Session on August 9, 2023, during which the Council voted unanimously, including Council Member Quirk, to initiate an independent investigation into Council Member Daniel Quirk’s conduct toward City Manager Ashley Jones and his alleged disclosure of confidential information discussed during a prior Closed Session to a member of the public.

The City identified and retained an independent, third-party investigator. However, the investigator was unable to complete the investigation and the City was not charged for those services. The City then proceeded to select another independent investigator. On October 6, 2023, the City retained the services of Public Safety Consulting, Inc. to conduct an 2 April 15, 2024 Item 12
City Council Agenda Report
Consideration to Censure Council Member Daniel Quirk
April 15, 2024

independent investigation, and the firm assigned Betty P. Kelepecz as investigator. Ms.

Kelepecz considered nine allegations:
(1) Whether Council Member Daniel Quirk interfered with City Manager Ashley Jones’ ability to implement policy set by the Council and oversee daily operations; (2) Whether Council Member Daniel Quirk caused present City Manager Ashley Jones and prior City Manager Christa Johnson to incur additional City funds and resources beyond authorized expenditure limits;
(3) Whether Council Member Daniel Quirk provided direction and feedback to City Manager Ashley Jones and City staff which was consistent with his own personal views, but directly conflicted with the position taken by the Council and the policy set by the Council;
(4) Whether Council Member Daniel Quirk also failed to limit his direct contacts with City staff (other than City Manager Ashley Jones and City Attorney Leslie Devaney) regarding matters of City business to requests for information in violation of the City Manager’s Employment Agreement;
(5) Whether Council Member Daniel Quirk coerced or otherwise pressured City Manager Ashley Jones, City staff, and outside consultants on how to complete their work; (6) Whether Council Member Daniel Quirk violated the confidentiality of the July 24, 2023, Closed Session of the Council by disclosing information and discussions from this session to one or more members of the public, concerning San Dieguito Drive road improvements;
(7) Whether Council Member Daniel Quirk made disparaging comments about other City officials, City staff and outside consultants, including City Manager Ashley Jones and City Attorney Leslie Devaney;
(8) Whether Council Member Daniel Quirk violated the terms of City Manager Ashley Jones’s Employment Agreement; and
(9) Whether Council Member Daniel Quirk violated Del Mar City Council Policies and/or Guiding Principles through various improprieties.

PRIOR DIRECTION ON ISSUES:

During his time in office, Council Member Daniel Quirk has been provided explicit direction on the impropriety of certain recurring actions. The Council has also been advised that any violations of the Del Mar City Council and City Manager Guiding Principles could be a breach of the City Manager’s Employment Agreement, which would be a liability to the City. That liability could result in the loss of the City Manager, low morale and/or turnover of City Staff and/or create financial exposure.

Additionally, on August 2, 2023, City Attorney Leslie Devaney sent an email to all Council Members, including Council Member Daniel Quirk, advising them in part about the impropriety and legal exposure resulting from an unauthorized disclosure of confidential information shared during a Closed Session meeting to another party. Further, Council Members, including Council Member Daniel Quirk, are regularly provided training on the Brown Act and the impropriety of disclosing confidential information or discussions raised during Closed Sessions of the Council, including with members of the public. Despite this advisement and recurring training, the issues with Council Member Daniel Quirk’s behavior persisted. 3 April 15, 2024 Item 12
City Council Agenda Report
Consideration to Censure Council Member Daniel Quirk
April 15, 2024

As such, on December 4, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-49 (Attachment I), censuring Council Member Daniel Quirk for failing to provide proper disclosure and transparency in his public communications. The Council noted that as part of the recurring Brown Act training, Council Member Daniel Quirk had been counseled about the necessity to properly disclose whether or not he is speaking on behalf of himself or the Council in his communications with the public. The Council also cited prior instances between May 2, 2022, and October 16, 2023, in which the Council had to take action to “set the record straight” about a variety of issues following communications to the public by Council Member Daniel Quirk that were in conflict with the positions taken by the Council.

RETENTION OF SPECIAL COUNSEL AND ISSUANCE OF INVESTIGATION REPORT:

On October 9, 2023, the City Council decided to retain Special Counsel Irma Rodriguez Moisa, Esq. of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo APC to advise the Council concerning the investigation, and how to proceed once Ms. Kelepecz provided her final investigation report and findings.

Between October 24, 2023, and January 3, 2024, Ms. Kelepecz conducted 15 interviews of 13 witnesses, the complainant City Manager Ashley Jones, and the investigative subject Council Member Daniel Quirk. Ms. Kelepecz also reviewed over 800 pages of documents in connection with the investigation, as well as relevant City Council Policies, Del Mar Municipal Code, Del Mar City Council and City Manager Guiding Principles, and City Manager Ashley Jones’s Employment Agreement.

The investigation report (Attachment J-linked due to file size:
https://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/9265/InvReport ) was finalized on February 15, 2024, and subsequently revised on March 30, 2024, by Special Counsel to correct typographical errors and for clarity. Ultimately, Ms. Kelepecz sustained all nine of the allegations within the scope of her investigation, namely:
(1) Council Member Daniel Quirk interfered with City Manager Ashley Jones’ ability to implement policy set by the Council and oversee daily operations; (2) Council Member Daniel Quirk caused present City Manager Ashley Jones and prior City Manager Christa Johnson to incur additional City funds and resources beyond authorized expenditure limits;
(3) Council Member Daniel Quirk provided direction and feedback to City Manager Ashley Jones and City staff which was consistent with his own personal views, but directly conflicted with the position taken by the Council and the policy set by the Council; (4) Council Member Daniel Quirk also failed to limit his direct contacts with City staff (other than City Manager Ashley Jones and City Attorney Leslie Devaney) regarding matters of City business to requests for information in violation of the City Manager’s Employment Agreement;
(5) Council Member Daniel Quirk coerced or otherwise pressured City Manager Ashley Jones, City staff, and outside consultants on how to complete their work; (6) Council Member Daniel Quirk violated the confidentiality of the July 24, 2023, Closed Session of the Council by disclosing information and discussions from this session to 4 April 15, 2024 Item 12
City Council Agenda Report
Consideration to Censure Council Member Daniel Quirk
April 15, 2024

one or more members of the public, concerning San Dieguito Drive road improvements;
(7) Council Member Daniel Quirk made disparaging comments about other City officials, City staff and outside consultants, including City Manager Ashley Jones and City Attorney Leslie Devaney;
(8) Council Member Daniel Quirk violated the terms of City Manager Ashley Jones’s Employment Agreement; and
(9) Council Member Daniel Quirk violated Del Mar City Council Policies and/or Guiding Principles through various improprieties.

Ms. Kelepecz reached findings based on a preponderance of the evidence, evaluating whether it was more likely than not that an incident occurred based on witness statements and documentation reviewed.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

As a self-regulating legislative body, and when the Council wishes to express its opinion on the conduct of a Council Member, it can do so with a range of responses from “off the record” informal counseling to a formal censure resolution, which may include penalties such as loss of committee assignments or other such measures that are within the Council’s authority.

When no penalty is included, censure is essentially a formal reprimand and the expression of an opinion by a majority of the legislative body. The Council has already taken this step with respect to Council Member Daniel Quirk back on December 4, 2023.

The Council has provided explicit and unambiguous direction to Council Member Daniel Quirk about its expectations about Council policy and legally mandated standards arising from the Brown Act. Council Member Daniel Quirk’s conduct reflects a recurring issue with complying with or following these expectations, legal standards and policies.

The investigation conducted by an outside neutral investigator finds that Council Member Daniel Quirk engaged in recurring acts of impropriety between December 13, 2020, and November 30, 2023, which violate the Brown Act, Council Policies, Del Mar City Council and City Manager Guiding Principles, and the Del Mar Municipal Code sections cited in this report.

Further, the investigation finds that Council Member Daniel Quirk has engaged in a yearslong pattern of conduct that violates the terms of City Manager Ashley Jones’ Employment Agreement. Based on this multi-faceted and long-standing issue, Mayor Druker and Council Member Martinez recommend that the City Council take formal action to censure Council Member Daniel Quirk, which may include penalties as determined by majority of the City Council.

It is worth noting, as stated in the prior censure issued to Council Member Daniel Quirk on December 4, 2023, that this proposed censuring is not in any way an attempt to silence or censor Council Member Daniel Quirk. The Council Member and all members of the City Council, as well as the Council body as a whole, have First Amendment free speech rights.

Further, Council Members have the right and responsibility as elected officials to interact with members of the public and convey their position on proposed City policy. However, in doing so, it is critically important for Council Members to abide by the clear standards set by law 5 April 15, 2024 Item 12
City Council Agenda Report
Consideration to Censure Council Member Daniel Quirk
April 15, 2024

under the Brown Act, and to refrain from interfering with the administration of City operations by seeking to direct work done by City staff.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Resolution to Censure Council Member Daniel Quirk Attachment B – Del Mar City Council and City Manager Guiding Principles Attachment C – Agreement Employing Ashley Jones as City Manager for the City of Del Mar Attachment D – Council Policy 102 – Direction to the City Manager Attachment E – Council Policy 202 – Expectations of Council Liaisons to City Advisory Committees and of Council Representatives to Outside Agencies Attachment F– Council Policy 301 – Request by Members of City Council to Place an Item on a City Council Agenda
Attachment G – Council Policy 314 – Public Comment that Discloses Closed Session Information
Attachment H – Del Mar Municipal Code Section 2.24.010
Attachment I – December 4, 2023 City Resolution No. 2023-49 Attachment J – City of Del Mar Administrative Investigation, Executive Summary, and Addenda – Confidential Investigation Report, prepared by Betty P. Kelepecz, Esq. (redacted) (provided as hyperlink): https://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/9265/InvReport 6 April 15, 2024 Item 12

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR,

CALIFORNIA, CENSURING COUNCIL MEMBER DANIEL QUIRK

FOR PERSONAL VIOLATIONS OF THE BROWN ACT, COUNCIL

POLICIES, DEL MAR MUNICIPAL CODE, AND RELATED

MISCONDUCT
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar (“City”) is a municipal corporation and charter city created by the City Council under Resolution No. 22 on December 21, 1959 (“City Charter”); and
WHEREAS, Section 201 of the City Charter reserves the City’s authority to pass all necessary ordinances and resolutions for the regulation of the City; and WHEREAS, a censure is generally understood to be “an official reprimand or condemnation; an authoritative expression of disapproval or blame” (Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)); and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has long recognized the practice of censuring legislative body members, which has been more commonly observed at the state and local level, and as early as 1833 (Houston Community College System v. Wilson (2022) 595 U.S. 468, 475); and
WHEREAS, public officials have the authority to censure an individual member of a legislative body (Braun v. City of Taft (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 332, 347-348); and WHEREAS, a censure is one approach of distancing the public agency from inappropriate behaviors that interfere with the agency's ability to conduct the public's business and protect its employees and the public; and
WHEREAS, following a series of inappropriate behavior, the Council unanimously (including Council Member Daniel Quirk) decided to retain the services of independent investigator Betty Kelepecz to conduct an exhaustive attorney-client confidential personnel investigation of allegations regarding Council Member Daniel Quirk; and
WHEREAS, the Council has placed an item on a regular open session meeting of the City Council on April 15, 2024, to address misconduct by Council Member Daniel Quirk and the legal liability to the City such conduct has created; and WHEREAS, the Council finds it necessary to protect the City Manager and employees of the City from Council Member Daniel Quirk’s behavior, limit the legal liability of the City, and demonstrate to the public that improper behavior and misconduct by any City official will be addressed in an open and transparent manner to preserve the public’s and employees’ trust in the City and the Council; and WHEREAS the findings of this Resolution are based upon the confidential personnel investigation report prepared by Independent Investigator Betty Kelepecz (“Investigation”); and
7 April 15, 2024 Item 12
Resolution No. 2024-XX

WHEREAS the impetus to censure Council Member Daniel Quirk includes, but is not limited to the following actions taken between December 13, 2020, and November 30, 2023:
• Council Member Daniel Quirk violated the confidentiality of the July 24, 2023, Council Closed Session by disclosing information and discussions from this meeting to others, concerning improvements to San Dieguito Drive, based on but not limited to the following actions:
• Council Member Daniel Quirk requested and did in fact meet in person with several members of the public following the July 24, 2023 closed council session; and
• Council Member Daniel Quirk shared with several members of the public confidential details shared during the closed council session, including the positions verbally taken on the project by other Council Members, specific statements made by Council Members about the project, and Council Member Daniel Quirk’s belief that he could influence the opinions held by other Council Members about the project; and
• On August 5, 2023, Council Member Daniel Quirk contacted via telephone one of the members of the public with whom he had previously discussed confidential information regarding improvements to San Dieguito Drive; and • During this August 5 telephone call, Council Member Daniel Quirk advised the member of the public that City Attorney Leslie Devaney had sent each Council Member a confidential email which had indicated (i) that the Council learned of a potential disclosure of confidential closed session information sharing with an outside party, and (ii) not to take any action to investigate or intervene in the matter; and
• During this August 5 telephone call, Council Member Daniel Quirk confronted the member of the public, inquired whether they were the party who had alerted the Council of the potential disclosure of confidential information to an outside party, and inquired if the member of the public would agree to be “a mole” and ascertain who had alerted the Council about the potential disclosure; and
• Council Member Daniel Quirk interfered with City Manager Ashley Jones’ ability to implement policy set by the Council and oversee daily operations, specifically:
• Council Member Daniel Quirk contacted vendors and obtained cost estimates for projects and materials; and
• Council Member Daniel Quirk questioned City Manager Ashley Jones on numerous occasions as to purchasing, materials, consultant hours, and project management; and
• Council Member Daniel Quirk questioned City employees about project related matters on numerous occasions, including but not limited to the Undergrounding project and its various phases, the River Path Trail project, Measure Q fund use, and others; and
• Council Member Daniel Quirk requested that City Manager Ashley Jones replace specific project leads with proposed alternative candidates, including but not limited to replacing the Undergrounding project lead; and • By engaging in this conduct, Council Member Daniel Quirk also failed to limit his direct contacts with City staff (other than City Manager Ashley Jones and City Attorney Leslie Devaney) regarding matters of City business to requests for information in violation of the City Manager’s contract. • Council Member Daniel Quirk caused present City Manager Ashley Jones and prior City Manager Christa Johnson to incur additional City funds and resources beyond 8 April 15, 2024 Item 12
Resolution No. 2024-XX

authorized expenditure limits, based on but not limited to the following actions:
• City staff and outside consultants were required to spend two to three hours to respond to each exchange of questions sent by Council Member Daniel Quirk on the Undergrounding project; and
• As to this project alone, the City incurred approximately $22,000 in additional consultant costs as of June 29, 2023 related to responding to Council Member Daniel Quirk’s questions; and
• These additional consultant costs exceeded authorized expenditure limits set by the Council; and
• By engaging in this conduct, Council Member Daniel Quirk’s inquiries also interfered with the ability of City staff and outside consultants to execute their routine duties.
• Council Member Daniel Quirk provided direction and feedback to City Manager Ashley Jones and City staff that was consistent with his own personal views, but directly conflicted with the position taken by the Council and the policy set by the Council, based on but not limited to the following actions:
• Council Member Daniel Quirk provided direction to City staff as to the Undergrounding project in 2021, which resulted in numerous concrete project changes such as vertical profiles in the civil design, lack of a full-time onsite construction manager during construction activities, and reduced communications with affected residents during construction; and • The changes or actions taken at the direction of Council Member Daniel Quirk as to the Undergrounding project resulted in damage to underground utilities and an increase in community complaints from affected residents; and
• The Council was required to resolve this unauthorized direction by advising City Manager Ashley Jones on September 19, 2022, to direct City staff to take corrective action as the Undergrounding project.
• Council Member Daniel Quirk coerced or otherwise pressured City Manager Ashley Jones, City staff, and outside consultants on how to complete their work, based on but not limited to the following actions:
• Council Member Daniel Quirk engaged with City staff in an aggressive and confrontational manner on multiple occasions, resulting in City staff reporting feelings of being pressured or City staff bursting into tears; and • Council Member Daniel Quirk directly contacted department directors via email or in person, about operational issues without the involvement or authorization of City Manager Ashley Jones; and
• Council Member Daniel Quirk engaged in over a dozen phone calls (each lasting 30 to 45 minutes on average) with project managers and outside consultants, using condescending language which frustrated call recipients; • Within a month of Council Member Daniel Quirk’s election to office, he acted in an unprofessional and aggressive manner to pressure the Undergrounding Project Advisory Committee (UPAC) to replace key project members, which was done at his direction.
• Council Member Daniel Quirk made disparaging comments about other City officials, City staff and outside consultants, based on but not limited to the following actions:
• Council Member Daniel Quirk told more than one member of the public on multiple occasions that City Manager Ashley Jones should be fired; and • Council Member Daniel Quirk repeatedly made disparaging comments to City Manager Ashley Jones about the work done by department directors regarding projects; and
9 April 15, 2024 Item 12
Resolution No. 2024-XX

• Council Member Daniel Quirk repeatedly made disparaging comments during council sessions about the work done by City staff and consultants; • Council Member Daniel Quirk made disparaging comments via email about the work done by City environmental consultants; and
• Council Member Daniel Quirk told other City officials that City Attorney Leslie Devaney should be fired and reported to the California State Bar and disbarred.
• The vast majority of the explanations Council Member Daniel Quirk provided to the outside investigator concerning the allegations made against him were found to be discredited, insincere, and/or illegitimate; and
WHEREAS, such unprofessional, interfering, and reckless behavior not only poses immediate legal risks but also has the potential to compromise the City’s strategic objectives, relationships with current and potential outside consultants, and erode the public’s trust in its leadership; and
WHEREAS, Council Member Daniel Quirk’s actions have decreased productivity and morale and potentially increased attrition, which in turn harms the City’s operational capabilities, and impacts the public and City staff; and WHEREAS, such actions are diverting essential resources away from the City’s core functions, thereby impacting its ability to serve the public effectively; and WHEREAS, the Council has previously provided explicit direction to Council Member Daniel Quirk on the impropriety of many of the actions listed above, namely:
• On August 2, 2023, City Attorney Leslie Devaney sent an email to all Council Members, including Council Member Daniel Quirk, advising them in part about the impropriety and legal exposure resulting from an unauthorized disclosure of confidential information shared during a closed council session meeting to another party; and
• Via Resolution No. 2023-49 adopted on December 4, 2023, the Council censured Council Member Daniel Quirk for failing to provide proper disclosure and transparency in his public communications, based on the following findings:
• The Council observed that Council Member Daniel Quirk had been counseled in a Brown Act compliant manner for failing to properly disclose whether or not he is speaking on behalf of himself or the Council in his communications with the public; and
• Despite the Council’s prior actions and requests from members of the public for Council Member Daniel Quirk to provide clear and transparent disclosure regarding his individual views and opinions, the issue persisted; and WHEREAS, a resolution of censure must be considered by the legislative body at an open public meeting, which was done on April 15, 2024, and the subject member, Council Member Daniel Quirk, given notice of the censure, which he was provided; and WHEREAS, the subject member, Council Member Daniel Quirk, must be given an opportunity to be heard prior to a vote on the censure, which the Council provided during its April 15, 2024, regular open session meeting. 10 April 15, 2024 Item 12
Resolution No. 2024-XX

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, as follows:

The City Council hereby finds, based on the Investigation, that:

1. Council Member Daniel Quirk violated City Council Policy 314 as well as the Brown Act by disclosing confidential information and discussions circulated during the July 24, 2023, closed council session, with one or more members of the public on several occasions; and

2. Council Member Daniel Quirk violated the terms of City Manager Ashley Jones’ Employment Agreement, by giving direction on numerous occasions to subordinates of the City Manager (including full-time City staff and outside consultants), requesting the replacement of project managers or City staff, interfering with the City Manager’s duty to execute the policy set by the Council and daily operations of the City; and

3. Council Member Daniel Quirk violated Del Mar City Council and City Manager Guiding Principles, as well as City Policies 102, 202, and 301 by interfering with the ability of City Manager Ashley Jones to implement policy set by the Council and oversee daily operations; and

4. Council Member Daniel Quirk violated Del Mar City Council and City Manager Guiding Principles, as well as City Policies 102, 202, and 301, by providing feedback or direction to City Manager Ashley Jones and City staff which was consistent with his own personal views, but directly conflicted with the position taken by the Council and the policy set by the Council; and

5. Council Member Daniel Quirk violated the Del Mar City Council and City Manager Guiding Principles, as well as City Council Policies 102, 202, and 301 by causing present City Manager Ashley Jones and prior City Manager Christa Johnson to incur additional City funds and resources beyond authorized expenditure limits, specifically due to Council Member Daniel Quirk’s inquiries of City staff and outside consultants; and

6. Council Member Daniel Quirk violated the Section 2.24.010 of the Del Mar Municipal Code, the Del Mar City Council and City Manager Guiding Principles, and City Council Policies 102, 202, and 301 by coercing or otherwise pressuring City Manager Ashley Jones, City staff, and outside consultants on how to complete their work; and

7. Council Member Daniel Quirk violated the Section 2.24.010 of the Del Mar Municipal Code and the Del Mar City Council and City Manager Guiding Principles by making unprofessional, disrespectful, discourteous, and/or disparaging comments about City officials, City Manager Ashley Jones, and City staff; and

8. None of the explanations provided by Council Member Daniel Quirk were found to be credible, sincere, legitimate or exculpatory; and

9. Council Member Daniel Quirk’s self-interested, reckless and potentially malicious behavior not only poses immediate legal risks but also has the potential to compromise the City’s strategic objectives and erode the public's trust in its leadership; and

10.Council Member Daniel Quirk’s actions (particularly his repeated inquiries to City staff and consultants about project details and costs) are diverting 11 April 15, 2024 Item 12
Resolution No. 2024-XX

essential resources away from the City’s core functions, thereby impacting its ability to serve the public effectively.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, as follows:

A) Council Member Daniel Quirk is hereby censured for personal violations of the Brown Act, Del Mar City Council and City Manager Guiding Principles, City Council Policy 314, Del Mar Municipal Code, and related misconduct as set forth in the findings above; and
B) Council Member Daniel Quirk is prohibited from disclosing confidential discussions and information from Closed Council Sessions to residents or others; and C) Council Member Daniel Quirk is directed not to engage in one-on-one discussions with City Manager Ashely Jones. Council Member Daniel Quirk remains entitled to engage with City Manager Ashley Jones during open and closed council sessions; and
D) Should Council Member Daniel Quirk engage in such discussions, City Manager Ashley Jones shall be entitled to either request that Assistant City Manager Clem Brown or designee be physically present during any one-on-one discussions with Council Member Daniel Quirk, or to exercise her discretion to decline to engage in one-on-one discussions with Council Member Daniel Quirk; and E) Council Member Daniel Quirk is directed not to engage in one-on-one discussions with City Attorney Leslie Devaney. Council Member Daniel Quirk remains entitled to engage with City Attorney Leslie Devaney during open and closed council sessions; and
F) Should Council Member Daniel Quirk engage in such discussions, City Attorney Leslie Devaney shall be entitled to either request that a third party be physically present during any one-on-one discussions with Council Member Daniel Quirk, or to exercise her discretion to decline to engage in one-on-one discussions with Council Member Daniel Quirk; and
G) Council Member Daniel Quirk is directed to refrain from taking any adverse, punitive, or other retaliatory action any person who participated or whom he perceives participated in the investigation, including but not limited to City Attorney Leslie Devaney, City Manager Ashley Jones, or any City staff based on the findings cited in this Resolution, the findings contained in the investigative report, or the actions taken by this Council on this matter.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at the Regular Meeting held this 15th day of April, 2024. _____________________________________
Dave Druker, Mayor
City of Del Mar
12 April 15, 2024 Item 12
Resolution No. 2024-XX

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. 2024-XX, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 15th day of April, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

RECUSE:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
13 April 15, 2024 Item 12

DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Under California law, the Council-Manager form of City government followed in Del Mar requires elected Councilmembers and the City Manager to understand and adhere to their respective roles. These roles are defined by the general law of California, Del Mar Municipal Code1, and City Manager’s employment contract. Generally, the Council’s role is to set policy much as does a board of directors of a corporation and not to engage in day to day activities or to direct City staff. The Manager’s role is to implement the policy set by the Council and oversee the day-to-day operations of the City. The City Manager and City Attorney work for and are hired and fired by the City Council. All other City employees work for, are hired and fired by, and take direction from the City Manager, not the City Council.

To make the best use of City resources, to be effective and efficient, to adhere to their respective roles, and to foster working as a team, the Council and City Manager agree to the following guiding principles to carry out their respective roles. These guiding principles are intended to compliment the requirements imposed by state law, Del Mar Municipal Code, and the Manager’s employment contract.

COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER INTERACTIONS
Councilmembers will:
• Copy the City Manager on their communications (emails, texts, etc.) to City staff regarding City business.
• Limit direct contacts with City staff (other than the Manager or City Attorney) regarding matters of City business to requests for information, except as authorized by the City Manager.
• Not give direction or assign work to City staff on their own.

The City Manager will:
• In conformance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, share information equally with all five Councilmembers except where a Councilmember’s conflict of interest prevents sharing. • Promptly respond to all Councilmember requests for information. • Keep the City Councilmembers equally informed on pending matters of importance. 1 See, generally, Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b); Cal Gov’t Code Section 36501; and DMMC Chapter 2.20 (City Council) and Chapter 2.24 (City Manager Manager.) The city manager’s role is further defined by employment contract. 14 April 15, 2024 Item 12
Del Mar Guiding Principles
Pg. 2 of 3

REPRESENTING CITY POSTIONS TO OUTSIDE PARTIES
With respect to matters of substantive City business, Councilmembers and the City Manager will:
• Follow Council Policy 202, Section B (Attachment A) regarding their representation of the City to outside agencies, boards, commissions, committees, and subcommittees. • If it is not clear what the adopted City position is on an issue, Councilmembers and the Manager shall so state and as needed may bring the matter to Council for clarification before stating a City position.

COUNCIL CONTACT WITH OUTSIDE AGENCIES
Council Contact with Outside Boards, Commissions, and Committees Councilmembers may contact an outside agency on which the Councilmember serves as a primary or alternate representative of the City, or as a liaison, at any time and as-needed, on matters related to their representation. However, Councilmembers are encouraged to keep the City Manager informed of matters of importance related to City business so that information can be shared with the full Council.

Council Contact with Other Elected Officials
Councilmembers may contact their peers (elected and appointed officials) on matters of City business but are encouraged to keep the City Manager informed of such contacts so that relevant information can be shared with the full Council.

On matters of non-City legislation related to City affairs, Councilmembers are encouraged to refer proposed contacts with federal, state, and local elected officials to the Council’s Legislative Subcommittee with a copy to the City Manager so the Subcommittee and Manager can keep the full Council informed.

Council Contact with Staff Members at Outside Agencies
Except for a Councilmember’s representation on outside Boards, Commission, and Committee’s and discussions with staff members of those agencies specific to that representation, contacts with staff from outside agencies should primarily occur at the staff level initiated by City staff, not the City’s elected officials. This is the normal practice and expectation for agency-to-agency communications and it causes concern and confusion for other agencies and City staff when not adhered to. As occasions arise when it would be appropriate for members of the Council (i.e., Council liaisons for specific topics) to participate in staff level meetings or discussions with outside agencies, this will be facilitated by the City Manager or City staff. It is expected that 15 April 15, 2024 Item 12
Del Mar Guiding Principles
Pg. 3 of 3
whenever members of the Council are communicating with staff members from outside agencies, specific to City of Del Mar business or City programs or projects, that the City Manager is included and made aware of the communications.

VIOLATIONS/ENFORCEMENT
First Offense: Will result in discussion in closed session or, if required by the Brown Act, in open session. The discussion shall focus on the nature of the alleged transgression and how it might be remediated.

Second or Subsequent Offense: Will result in discussion in closed session or, if required by the Brown Act, in open session as noted above under First offense. In addition, the offender may be subjected to remediation requirements as directed by the Council. Such measures may include the issuance of corrections to any improper communications, to removing the offender from Council committee assignments, and/or from regional agency representation of the City, or to formal censure. Where such proceedings are required to be held in open session, they shall be placed on the Council agenda for action.

PUBLIC RECORDS
The Council and Manager recognize that all written communications (by letter, email, text, or other written or electronic means) are potentially disclosable as public records under the California Public Records Act and the Del Mar Municipal Code.

COMMENTS
• Each Councilmember is independently elected. These guidelines are intended to facilitate communication, information sharing, and effective City governance without diminishing the authority and responsibilities of any elected Councilmember. • Only the City Manager and the City Attorney report directly to the Council. All other department heads and City employees report to the Manager. These guidelines are not intended to change that.
• These guidelines are a working document to be revised and updated by the full council as needed.

Adopted by the Del Mar City Council on September 7, 2021 16 April 15, 2024 Item 12

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
202

RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTATIONS OF

COUNCIL LIASIONS TO CITY ADVISORY

COMMITTEES AND OF COUNCIL

REPRESENTATIVES TO OUTSIDE

AGENCIES
DATE REVISED: 11-19-2018
BY RESOLUTION: 2018-82
PAGES: 1 OF 4
POLICY:

The following are guidelines to assist council members in performing their duties as liaisons to city advisory committees, Del Mar Community Connections (DMCC), Del Mar Village Association (DMVA), various Del Mar non-profits, and as Del Mar representatives to outside agencies. These guidelines also apply to the appointed community representatives to outside agencies, including the Del Mar Representative to the San Diego County Water Authority Board.

A. City Advisory Committees

1. Council Liaison primary responsibilities include:
a. Assist with the recruitment of qualified volunteers and encourage them to apply to serve on the committee when vacancies occur, recognizing that the city’s goal is to have at least two qualified applicants for each position. b. Recruit another Council member to attend meetings in their place when the liaison is unable to attend.
c. Assist Committee Chairs with the following:
i. How to run a meeting;
ii. How to accommodate public testimony and input;
iii. How to prepare and distribute agendas, including review of draft agendas with the chair (A sample agenda is attached to use as a template);
iv. Clarifying the process for committee members and the public to get something on the committee agenda;
v. Ensuring that the committee stays on task;
vi. Knowing when city staff should, and should not, be asked for assistance.

Generally, simple requests for information from staff can be made directly by the chair or committee members while requests for staff work should go through the Liaison(s) who can carry them to the City Manager and staff for response;
vii. Establishing goals and a work plan for the committee each March in conjunction with the City’s budget and goal setting process. d. Inform and assist the committee as a whole including:
i. Understanding the city’s system of advisory committees including:
17 April 15, 2024 Item 12

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
202

RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTATIONS OF

COUNCIL LIASIONS TO CITY ADVISORY

COMMITTEES AND OF COUNCIL

REPRESENTATIVES TO OUTSIDE

AGENCIES
DATE REVISED: 11-19-2018
BY RESOLUTION: 2018-82
PAGES: 2 OF 4

1. Understanding the role of a committee member;

2. Understanding the scope of the committee’s charge;

3. Understanding the relationship between the committee, council, public, and city staff; and

4. Understanding any budgetary constraints applicable to the committee’s work.
e. Ensuring the committee stays on task and within the scope of its charter and mission, adopted council goals, and any direction provided by council. f. Ensuring the committee understands its role is advisory only. g. Assisting the committee in completing its advisory recommendations to Council in a timely manner.
h. Effectively communicating committee advisory recommendations to Council. i. Facilitating transition to a successor liaison when there is change. j. Where appropriate, advocating for committee recommendation.

2. Reporting:
a. To the committee. The liaison(s) to a committee should give a brief report to the committee at the beginning of each meeting covering:
i. Any recent actions of the City Council or upcoming Council agenda items relevant to the committee’s work; and
ii. Any recent actions of outside entities or governments, of which the liaison has knowledge, relevant to the committee’s work. b. To the Council, staff, and public. The liaison(s) should give a report, in public session, at council meetings covering:
i. Updates on the committee’s work;
ii. Identification, and discussion as appropriate, of any difficulties the committee is experiencing and recommendations for how assistance can be provided;
iii. Any committee actions/recommendations;
18 April 15, 2024 Item 12

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
202

RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTATIONS OF

COUNCIL LIASIONS TO CITY ADVISORY

COMMITTEES AND OF COUNCIL

REPRESENTATIVES TO OUTSIDE

AGENCIES
DATE REVISED: 11-19-2018
BY RESOLUTION: 2018-82
PAGES: 3 OF 4
iv. Any specific requests from the committee for assistance, guidance, or other support; and
v. In addition to providing oral updates to the Council, written reports are encouraged for matters of importance as a written report can be included in the public agenda packet and accessible following the Council meeting. A sample form for such reports is attached.

3. Attendance:
a. Council Liaison attendance. It shall be the policy of the City Council that Council Liaison(s) assigned to Council advisory committees make it their goal to attend the advisory committee meetings. The liaison(s), in communication with the committee chair and each other, may determine whether one, both, or neither of the committee liaison(s) are needed at a particular committee meeting. It is also the goal of the City Council to promote the continued progress of the advisory committees and not require that a Council liaison be in attendance in order for that committee to meet.
b. Committee member attendance. Del Mar Municipal Code, Chapter 2.30 states that if a member of a commission, board, or committee is absent from three meetings within a 12-month period without cause, the term of said member is automatically vacated. Council liaison(s) shall work with committee chairs to determine whether absences are for cause and will notify the Administrative Services Department when a committee member has three or more absences without cause within a 12-month period.

B. Council or Council Appointed Representatives to Outside Agencies

1. Responsibilities:
a. Represent Del Mar to the outside agency, its staff, and to the public in conformance with the city’s goals, priorities, and objectives in a manner consistent with the city’s adopted policies and priorities and with any direction from council as a whole.
b. Attend meetings of the outside agency to which the Council member or appointee serves as a representative, securing the services of an alternate where possible on those occasions where the primary Council member or appointee is unable to attend.
c. Be diligent in reviewing agenda materials and preparing for meetings. 19 April 15, 2024 Item 12

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
202

RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTATIONS OF

COUNCIL LIASIONS TO CITY ADVISORY

COMMITTEES AND OF COUNCIL

REPRESENTATIVES TO OUTSIDE

AGENCIES
DATE REVISED: 11-19-2018
BY RESOLUTION: 2018-82
PAGES: 4 OF 4
d. Speak up, orally or in writing, to the outside agency to represent Del Mar’s positions on issues relevant to Del Mar and be an advocate for Del Mar’s positions.

4. Reporting: The Council representative or appointee should report to the Council, staff, and public at council meetings as follows:
a. A summary of the outside agency’s activities since the prior report. b. Any specific actions, polices, or directions of the outside agency that affect Del Mar.
c. Any significant upcoming activities of the outside agency of potential interest to Del Mar.
d. On any outside agency committee or subcommittee changes affecting Del Mar. e. In addition to providing oral updates to the Council, written reports are encouraged for matters of importance as a written report can be included in the public agenda packet and accessible following the Council meeting. A sample form for such reports is attached.

5. Arranging Presentations. From time to time it may be appropriate for a Council liaison or appointee to an outside agency to arrange for a presentation by the agency to the full Council in a public meeting. When this seems appropriate, the following guidelines can be followed:
a. Bring the request to Council for discussion and concurrence before taking it up with the outside agency;
b. Work with the Mayor and staff to put the presentation on a Council meeting agenda; and
c. Work with the outside agency to assist them in preparing their presentation. 20 April 15, 2024 Item 12
21 April 15, 2024 Item 12
22 April 15, 2024 Item 12
23 April 15, 2024 Item 12
24 April 15, 2024 Item 12
25 April 15, 2024 Item 12
26 April 15, 2024 Item 12
27 April 15, 2024 Item 12
28 April 15, 2024 Item 12
29 April 15, 2024 Item 12
30 April 15, 2024 Item 12
31 April 15, 2024 Item 12
32 April 15, 2024 Item 12

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
102 DIRECTION TO THE CITY MANAGER
DATE REVISED: 9-15-2014
BY RESOLUTION: 2014-70
PAGES: 1 OF 1
POLICY:

The City Council shall give orders and instruction to the City Manager only when sitting in a duly held meeting of the Council. Orders and instructions to the City Manager shall be given only after a motion and vote supported by a majority of the City Council. No individual Councilmember shall give orders or instructions to the City Manager or his/her subordinates. 33 April 15, 2024 Item 12

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
202

RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTATIONS OF

COUNCIL LIASIONS TO CITY ADVISORY

COMMITTEES AND OF COUNCIL

REPRESENTATIVES TO OUTSIDE

AGENCIES
DATE REVISED: 1/10/2022
BY RESOLUTION: 2022-07
PAGES: PAGE 1 OF
4 POLICY:

The following guidelines are to assist City Council members in performing their duties as liaisons to City advisory committees, ad hoc committees, Del Mar Community Connections (DMCC), Del Mar Village Association (DMVA), various Del Mar non-profits, and as Del Mar representatives to outside agencies. These guidelines also apply to the appointed community representatives to outside agencies, including the Del Mar Representative to the San Diego County Water Authority Board.

A. CITY ADVISORY COMMITTEES

1. Council Liaison Primary Responsibilities
a) Assist with the recruitment of qualified volunteers and encourage them to apply to serve on the committee when vacancies occur, recognizing that the City’s goal is to have at least two qualified applicants for each position. b) Recruit another Council member to attend meetings in their place when the liaison is unable to attend.
c) Assist Committee Chairs with the following:
i. How to run a meeting.
ii. How to accommodate public testimony and input.
iii. How to work with the committee’s staff liaison to prepare agendas, including review of draft agendas with the Chair and staff liaison (A sample agenda is attached to use as a template);
iv. Clarify the process for committee members and the public to get something on the committee agenda.
v. Ensure that the committee stays on task.
vi. Determining when City staff should, and should not, be asked for assistance. Generally, simple requests for information from staff can be made directly by the Chair or committee members while requests for staff work should go through the Council liaison(s) who can carry them to the City Manager and staff for response.
vii. Establishing goals and a work plan for the committee at the beginning of each year in conjunction with the City’s budget and goal setting process.
d) Inform and assist the committee as a whole including:
i. Understanding the City’s system of advisory committees including:

1. Understanding the role of a committee member.
34 April 15, 2024 Item 12

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
202

RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTATIONS OF

COUNCIL LIASIONS TO CITY ADVISORY

COMMITTEES AND OF COUNCIL

REPRESENTATIVES TO OUTSIDE

AGENCIES
DATE REVISED: 1/10/2022
BY RESOLUTION: 2022-07
PAGES: PAGE 2 OF
4 2. Understanding the scope of the committee’s charge.

3. Understanding the relationship between the committee, Council, public, and City staff.

4. Understanding any budgetary constraints applicable to the committee’s work.
e) Ensures the committee stays on task and within the scope of its charter and mission, adopted Council goals, and any direction provided by Council. f) Ensures the committee understands its role is advisory only. g) Assist the committee in completing its advisory recommendations to Council in a timely manner.
h) Effectively communicates committee advisory recommendations to Council. i) Facilitates in transition to a successor Council liaison when there is change. j) Where appropriate, advocates for committee recommendations. k) Ensuring that meetings are welcoming and that the Code of Civil Discourse is followed.

2. Reporting
a) To the Committee. The Council liaison(s) should give a brief report to the committee at the beginning of each meeting covering:
i. Any recent actions of the City Council or upcoming Council agenda items relevant to the committee’s work; and
ii. Any recent actions of outside entities or governments, of which the liaison has knowledge, relevant to the committee’s work. b) To the Council, Staff, and Public. The Council liaison(s) should give a report, in public session, at Council meetings covering:
i. Updates on the committee’s work;
ii. Identify, and discuss as may be appropriate, any difficulties the committee is experiencing and provide recommendations for how assistance can be provided;
iii. Any committee actions/recommendations;
35 April 15, 2024 Item 12

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
202

RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTATIONS OF

COUNCIL LIASIONS TO CITY ADVISORY

COMMITTEES AND OF COUNCIL

REPRESENTATIVES TO OUTSIDE

AGENCIES
DATE REVISED: 1/10/2022
BY RESOLUTION: 2022-07
PAGES: PAGE 3 OF
4 iv. Any specific requests from the committee for assistance, guidance, or other support; and
v. In addition to providing oral updates to the Council, written reports are encouraged for matters of importance which can be included in the public agenda packet and accessible following the Council meeting.

3. Attendance
a) Council Liaison Attendance. It shall be the policy of the City Council that Council liaison(s) assigned to Council advisory committees make it their goal to attend the advisory committee meetings. The liaison(s), in communication with the committee Chair and each other, may determine whether one, both, or neither of the committee Council liaison(s) are needed at a particular committee meeting. It is also the goal of the City Council to promote the continued progress of the advisory committees and not to require that a Council liaison be in attendance in order for that committee to meet.
b) Committee Member Attendance. Del Mar Municipal Code, Chapter 2.30 states that if a member of a commission, board, or committee is absent from three meetings within a 12-month period without cause, the term of said member is automatically vacated. Council liaison(s) shall work with committee chairs to determine whether absences are for cause and will notify the City Clerk and the City staff liaison for the committee when a committee member has three or more absences without cause within a 12-month period. Examples of absences for cause include but are not limited to injury or illness of the member or their immediate family member, family obligations, and observance of religious holidays.

B. COUNCIL APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVES TO OUTSIDE AGENCIES

1. Responsibilities
a) Represents Del Mar to the outside agency, its staff, and to the public in conformance with the City’s goals, priorities, and objectives in a manner consistent with the City’s adopted policies and priorities and with any direction from Council as a whole.
b) Attends meetings of the outside agency to which the Council member or appointee serves as a representative, securing the services of an alternate when the primary Council member or appointee is unable to attend. c) Diligent in reviewing agenda materials and preparing for meetings. 36 April 15, 2024 Item 12

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
202

RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTATIONS OF

COUNCIL LIASIONS TO CITY ADVISORY

COMMITTEES AND OF COUNCIL

REPRESENTATIVES TO OUTSIDE

AGENCIES
DATE REVISED: 1/10/2022
BY RESOLUTION: 2022-07
PAGES: PAGE 4 OF
4 d) Speaks up, orally or in writing, to the outside agency to represent Del Mar’s positions on issues relevant to Del Mar and be an advocate for Del Mar’s positions.

2. Reporting
The Council representative or appointee should report to the Council, staff, and public at Council meetings as follows:
a) When appropriate, a summary of the outside agency’s significant activities since the prior report.
b) Any specific actions, polices, or directions of the outside agency that affect Del Mar.
c) Any significant upcoming activities of the outside agency of potential interest to Del Mar.
d) On any outside agency committee or subcommittee changes affecting Del Mar. e) In addition to providing oral updates to the Council, written reports are encouraged for matters of importance which can be included in the public agenda packet and accessible following the Council meeting.

Arranging Presentations. From time to time it may be appropriate for a Council liaison or appointee to an outside agency to coordinate a presentation by the agency to the full Council in a public meeting. When this seems appropriate, the following guidelines can be followed:
a) Bring the request to Council for discussion and concurrence before taking it up with the outside agency;
b) Work with the Mayor and City Manager to put the presentation on a Council meeting agenda; and
c) Work with the outside agency to assist them in preparing their presentation. 37 April 15, 2024 Item 12

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
301

REQUEST BY MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL

TO PLACE AN ITEM ON A CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
DATE REVISED: 7-1-2019
BY RESOLUTION: 2019-34
PAGES: 1 OF 1
POLICY:

1. Any two City Councilmembers may request that an item be placed on a City Council Agenda for discussion and possible action.

2. For the item to be placed on the agenda:
a. Councilmembers intending to request that an item be placed on a City Council Agenda shall notify staff as soon as possible, but not later than a week and a half prior to the agenda packet distribution.
b. The request must be submitted to the City Manager in writing and include the wording of the agenda item and a brief explanation of the issue to be discussed; and c. The information and materials needed for agenda packet distribution must be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday prior to the City Council agenda packet distribution date.
d. Exceptions will be made for requests that are time sensitive or are deemed an emergency.

3. Generally, a staff report will not be prepared for the item.

DISCUSSION: The agenda is a lawful tool used by the City Council to conduct the public's business. To accommodate the diversity of the City's citizens, City Councilmembers, as representatives of the public, should be afforded the opportunity to present matters for City Council consideration.
38 April 15, 2024 Item 12

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
314 PUBLIC COMMENT THAT DISCLOSES

CLOSED SESSION INFORMATION
DATE REVISED: 9-15-2014
BY RESOLUTION: 2014-70
PAGES: 1 OF 1
POLICY:

1. City Council members and interested staff are not to improperly disclose information generated in a Closed Session of the City Council on any matter which may come before the Council in Closed Session. The Council shall, as a body and in accordance with the Brown Act and other appropriate laws and regulations, determine that information which is appropriate for disclosure and the method of such disclosure. In general, information generated during a Closed Session is not to be discussed publicly unless:
a. Disclosure is required by law, or;
b. When disclosure is not prohibited by law, and the City Council authorizes such disclosure.

2. Such disclosure shall be made by the City Attorney in open session.

3. City Councilmembers who, for any reason, do not participate in a closed session shall disclose their non-participation either prior to or following the closed session.

DISCUSSION:

This policy is intended to regulate a City Official’s public comment that discloses Closed Session information.
39 April 15, 2024 Item 12
TITLE 2 - ADMINISTRATION
Chapter 2.24 CITY MANAGER
Del Mar, California, Municipal Code Created: 2024-04-03 15:46:16 [EST] (Supp. No. 8)

Chapter 2.24 CITY MANAGER

2.24.010 Office of City Manager Created.

A. The office of City Manager is hereby created and established.

B. The City Manager shall be the administrative head of the municipal government under the direction and control of the City Council and shall exercise those general powers necessary for the efficient administration of the City as well as those powers set forth in this Chapter.

C. The City Council and its members shall deal with the administration of the City only through the City Manager. Except for purposes of inquiry, neither the City Council nor a member of the City Council shall give orders to subordinates of the City Manager.
(Ord. No. 391)

2.24.020 Appointment.

A. The City Manager shall be appointed by the City Council wholly on the basis of the City Manager's executive and administrative qualifications and ability.

B. The residence of the City Manager shall be located so as to allow for the effective and timely performance of the duties and responsibilities of the position.

C. No person elected or appointed as a Council-member of the City shall, subsequent to such election or appointment, be eligible for appointment as City Manager until one year has elapsed since such person has held the position of City Councilmember.

D. The City Manager may appoint a City officer or employee to serve as temporary City Manager. If required, failing such an appointment, the City Council may designate a temporary City Manager.

2.24.030 Removal.

A. The City Manager shall hold the office at the pleasure of the City Council.

B. To remove the City Manager, at least three members of the City Council must approve a written notice of removal with an effective date no sooner than 30 days after the giving of such notice.

C. Upon the giving of written notice for removal, the City Council may suspend the City Manager from duty with pay until the effective date of removal.

D. In no event shall the City Manager be served with a notice of removal within a period of 90 days from a municipal election in which an individual is newly elected as a member of the City Council.

2.24.040 Full-time Position.

The City Manager shall expend full time on the performance of the duties enumerated herein and shall not take on additional employment without the consent of the City Council. 40 April 15, 2024 Item 12
Created: 2024-04-03 15:46:16 [EST]
(Supp. No. 8)

2.24.050 Compensation.

A. The City Manager shall receive such compensation and expense allowances as the City Council shall, from time to time, determine and fix by resolution.

B. The City Manager shall be reimbursed for all sums necessarily incurred or paid by the City Manager in the performance of the City Manager's duties to include travel on City business.

2.24.060 Bond.

The City Manager shall furnish a corporate surety bond from a surety and in an amount approved by the City Council for the faithful performance of the duties imposed upon the City Manager. The premium for such bond shall be a proper charge against the City.

2.24.070 Duties, Responsibilities and Authority.

The duties, responsibilities, and authority of the City Manager shall include, without limitation, the following:

A. To enforce all laws and ordinances of the City;
B. To enforce all franchises, permits, and privileges granted by the City; C. To appoint, remove, promote, and demote all department heads serving at the pleasure of the City Manager;
D. To control, order, and give directions to all department heads; E. To attend all meetings of the City Council, unless excused therefrom; F. To attend Commission meetings upon the City Manager's own volition or upon the direction of the City Council;
G. To recommend to the City Council the adoption of such measures and ordinances as the City Manager deems necessary;
H. To keep the City Council fully advised at all times as to the financial conditions and needs of the City and to furnish quarterly financial reports to the City Council; I. To control the purchases of all supplies for all departments or divisions of the City to include submitting or recommending expenditures to the City Council;
J. To prepare and submit a proposed annual budget and a proposed salary plan to the City Council by June 1st of each year;
K. To investigate into the affairs of the City and any department or division thereof, and into the proper performance of any contract or other obligation pertaining to the City; L. To investigate all complaints in relation to matters concerning the administration of the City to include services maintained by public utilities in the City;
M. To supervise the use of all public buildings, public parks, and all other public property which are under the control and jurisdiction of the City;
N. To perform such other duties and exercise such other powers and authority as may be delegated to the City Manager from time to time by action of the City Council. 41 April 15, 2024 Item 12
42 April 15, 2024 Item 12
43 April 15, 2024 Item 12
44 April 15, 2024 Item 12