Agenda, first session — Del Mar City Council, February 3, 2025

Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda
Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
February 3, 2025 City Council Meeting

INFORMATION RECEIVED

AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA

WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)
Dear City Councilpersons:

We support the Huettners’request for a permit to retain an existing fence within the public right-ofway at 401 9th Street.

Before the current Hoska Alley Project there was no usable alley behind 401 9th Street. This portion of the alley from 401 west to Camino del Mar had been abandoned, but not vacated, by the City of Del Mar, and by San Diego county before incorporation in1959. The area was overgrown with vegetation (capturing carbon?) and barely passable on foot. The last garage served by the alley is at 410 8th Street, two lots east of 401.

In 1995, the alley was dirt and periodically flooded the swimming pool at 405 9th Street. About 20 years ago the alley was regraded, a storm drain was installed, and the alley was surfaced with decomposed granite (aka DG). This solved the flooding problem, and the surface was pervious allowing some of the collected water to percolate into the ground (Clean Water Act?).

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration,
Martha and Larry Brooks
411 9th Street
February 3, 2025 Item 07
February 3, 2025 Item 07
Dear City Councilpersons:

We support the Huettners’request for a permit to retain an existing fence within the public right-ofway at 405 9 th Street.

The last garage served by the alley is at 410 8th Street, one lot east of 405, and therefore the existing fence does not impeded vehicular use.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration,
Martha and Larry Brooks
411 9th Street
February 3, 2025 Item 07
February 3, 2025 Item 07
Date: 2/3/2025
To: City of Del Mar
Councilmembers
City Clerk
From: Allen Hall
406 8th Street
Del Mar, CA 92014
Subject: Del Mar City Council Meeting 2/3/2025
EP24-106 & EP24-107, APN#: 300-222-08-00 / -09-00
Hoska Alley Drainage and Paving Project
Dear City Councilmembers,
These comments are regarding encroachments into the City’s right-of-way identified as Hoska Alley. My name is Allen Hall and I reside at 406 8th Street Del Mar, CA (also owner). The subject properties (401 & 405 9th Street) are directly north of my home across Hoska Alley.

The identified encroachments are existing fences along Hoska Alley. The fences appear to be major encroachments and long term. Also the fences convey the impression that the enclosed alley area (encroached upon area) is owned by the applicant (a prohibited encroachment Sec. 23.28.040). The City should not grant encroachment permits for the referenced properties.

Following completion of the current drainage and paving project the City should work with property owners along Hoska Alley to improve stability of the new grade surface. The new alley configuration will probably result in some earth stability issues that the City should address by properly maintaining their right-of-way.

Background. A related encroachment was approved in 2006 that resulted in significant changes to the grade of Hoska Alley directly behind, north of, our property (EP-06-57). Prior to this we had easy vehicle access to our back yard. Routinely I could park my truck adjacent to and at the same level as my back yard to deliver or remove materials such as garden supplies. That approved encroachment also included the rebuilding of the fence along 405 9th Street. After these changes we no longer have that access for our vehicles.

During discussion of the 2006 Encroachment Permit application before the City Council and/or City Staff the Encroachment Permit applicant’s representative made statements that the project would not block access. City Staff recommended the Council condition that project to ensure it would not block vehicle access for any properties that enter/exit off the alley.

In addition to the referenced encroachment permit applications before the City Council there are a number of other encroachments and potential hazards along the newly improved Hoska Alley. The City should work with other property owners to bring all encroachments into compliance. Specifically there appears to be electrical conduit running along the ground surface at the western end of the alley. Once the alley paving is completed at the east end the public will probably start walking the full length and encounter hazards on City property.

Sincerely,
Allen Hall
February 3, 2025 Item 07
February 3, 2025
1/5
Del Mar City Council
Via email: [email protected]
Re: Encroachment Permits EP24-106, EP24-107, Meeting Agenda Item 07 Council Members:

Dating at least as far back as March 7 2005, Del Mar City Council has discussed in open Council meetings the benefit of maintaining clear paths with the expressed recognition of the value of firebreaks and open space. Passable alleys in the City are also available for firefighting purposes and other public safety operations. I agree with the City Councils expression at that time and many times subsequently that they should be maintained as such.

I am opposed to the approval of the Encroachment Permits EP24-106 and 107, conditioned or otherwise appearing as item 07 on the February 3, 2025 City Council Agenda. I urge the City Council to protect and preserve the public right of way which has recently been improved to the benefit of the entire community. My opposition is based on the inability to satisfy the six required findings for approval of a Long-term Major EP.

Background:

The dedicated width of the Hoska Alley is 20’ as described in the Staff Report. Staff indicates the encroachment is three (3) to four (4) feet into the alley. However, I measured the encroachment from five (5) to seven (7) feet. This restricts the width of the alley from 20 feet down to 13-15 feet. The height of the fence is mostly 5’. The Staff Photos in Attachment E labeled as 16 feet, I measure as 13 feet wide.

Although the fences did not interfere with the storm drain improvements, they do impede future access to the alley. The encroachment deters use of the public right of way by further restricting access.

Findings:

The Staff Report describes moving the encroachments back to the property line as being a potential safety issue for the City, however residences on both the east and west sides of 401 and 405 9th Street have successfully addressed the slope topography with appropriate retaining walls, fill and fence without encroachment into the public right of way. Many single-family residents along the alley have moved their encroachments back to the respective property lines as a result of the recent improvements.

The current encroachment north of our property directly restricts access to our property.

The photos attached reflect how directly neighboring properties to the east and west have addressed the topography without encroachment. It may be possible to address the issues without encroachment.

February 3, 2025 Item 07
February 3, 2025
2/5
Finding 1: That the issuance of the EP will not endanger public health, safety or welfare, or the surrounding property.

Finding 1: from Staff Report. ”The fence has been in this location for many years with no record of incident or reported adverse impact.” Vehicles use the alley behind 405 9th Street. This includes utilities, public works as well as private vehicles. We have previously communicated the concern for maintaining vehicular access to the rear of our property and the availability of the public right of way for use by emergency, utility, city maintenance as well as private vehicles. Restricted access does risk endangerment of public health, safety and welfare as well as the surrounding property.

Finding 3: That the issuance of the EP will not have an adverse impact on the welfare of the community or on the community’s appearance or aesthetics.

There may not be explicit complaints regarding these fences, however there has been written concern expressed to the City Council regarding the narrowing of the public right of way limiting access, thus negatively impacting the welfare of the community.

Finding 4: That the issuance of the EP will not cause an unnecessary change in the character of the community.

The encroachment is not consistent with other fences located along the alley, in that the other fences are along, or near to the property lines of the respective properties. Many neighbors along the public right of way moved their encroachments back to the property lines with the recent work performed in the public right of way. Neighboring properties directly to the east are properly retained and fenced at the property line.

Finding 6: The proposed Encroachment will not convert significant area of public property to private use.

The analysis describes the width of the Hoska Alley as 20 feet, the traversable width as 16-17 feet. As mentioned above I measure the traversable width to be 13-15 feet. This is a more significant conversion of area than represented in the Report.

Based on the available information, it does not appear all required findings are satisfied.

Therefore, the City Council should not adopt the Proposed Resolutions.

Respectfully,
Louise Focht
406 8th Street
Del Mar, CA 92014
February 3, 2025 Item 07
February 3, 2025
3/5
Properties to the east
Properties to the east
February 3, 2025 Item 07
February 3, 2025
4/5
Properties to the west
February 3, 2025 Item 07
February 3, 2025
5/5
South west corner, looking east
February 3, 2025 Item 07
City of Del Mar
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Nestor Machado, Management Analyst
Karen Brindley, Planning and Community Development Director Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: February 3, 2025
SUBJECT: Red Dot for Item 7: Encroachment Permits 24-106 and 24-107 to Retain Existing Fencing within the Public Right-of-Way at 401 and 405 9th Street Item 7 on the February 3, 2025, City Council agenda includes adoption of Resolutions to approve the retention of existing wooden fences on the south side of 401 and 405 9th Street. The Resolutions (Attachment A and B to the agenda report) findings 2 and 6 include additional information of the description of the final improved condition of the alley and revises the measurements of the fence encroachments both fences into the Hoska Alley right-of-way, as described below.

It has been determined that the existing wooden fence at 401 9th St., encroaches approximately 7.5 feet into Hoska Alley at the southwest corner of the fence. At 405 9th St., it has been determined that the existing wooden fence encroaches approximately four (4) feet into Hoska Alley at the southeast corner of the fence.

Based off the revised information, staff’s recommendation to approve the Resolutions to retain the existing wooden fences on the south side of 401 and 405 9th St. remains the same due to the significant slope in both of the Applicant’s backyards. Removal of the existing fences could create a public safety condition/fall hazard as the fences are located at the top of steep slopes.

Attachments: Revised Resolutions for Item 7 on February 3, 2025, City Council Agenda February 3, 2025 Item 07
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL
MAR, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 24-
106 TO RETAIN AN EXISTING WOODEN FENCE THAT EXTENDS

INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
THE PROPERTY AT 401 9TH STREET (APN: 300-222-08-00) IN

DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar (City) is the owner of the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, Ken Huettner (Applicant) has filed an application for an Encroachment Permit (EP24-106) seeking approval to allow the existing wooden fence on the south side of the property to remain within the public right-of-way (Project); and WHEREAS, the property does not have an approved Encroachment Permit for the existing fence in the right-of-way on the south side of the property; and WHEREAS, Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 23.28 requires an Encroachment Permit (EP) for any private improvements within the public right-of-way; specifically, any improvements that extend at least 12 inches above the level of the sidewalk, roadway, or adjacent grade require City Council approval; and WHEREAS, Section 23.28.070 of the DMMC provides that an Encroachment Permit may be approved or conditionally approved only if the Council makes all of the findings set forth in Section 23.28.070(C) as noted in the below; and WHEREAS, in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is listed among the classes of projects determined to have less than significant adverse effect on the environment and, therefore, is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Class 1 – Existing Facilities in that the project proposes retaining an existing encroachment by an accessory structure (fence); and WHEREAS, on February 3, 2025, the City Council of the City of Del Mar held a duly noticed public hearing to review the referenced entitlements, and at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, oral and written evidence was submitted and considered to include without limitation:
a. Plans developed by the City;
b. Written information submitted with the application;
c. Agenda Report, dated February 3, 2025, incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein; and
e. Additional information submitted and testimony provided during the hearing.

February 3, 2025 Item 07
Resolution 2025-XX

Page 2 of 6 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar that Encroachment Permit EP24-106 is hereby approved based on the following findings in DMMC Chapter 23.28.070(C):

Findings:

1. Retaining the wooden fence on the south side of the property would not endanger the public’s health, safety, or welfare, nor would it endanger the surrounding property. The fence has been in this location for many years with no record of incident or reported adverse impact. The fence has and will continue to act as a safety barrier between the Applicant’s backyard and the public right-of-way due to the steep slope in the back of the property.

2. The existing encroachment that would be authorized under this EP will not unreasonably interfere with the use of the alley and will not block the accessible route of travel because there are no plans to develop the western 450 feet of the public right-of-way. This portion of Hoska Alley is only traversable on foot and has no feasible public exit to the west. Once the Hoska Alley Street and Storm Drain Improvement Project (Project) is completed, native hydroseed will be planted from Camino del Mar to 333 9th St. that will grow out into native vegetation in the alley.

Furthermore, mulch has been installed in the portion of the alley from 333 9th St. east to 405 9th St. to match the previous conditions. If the City identifies a future need for this public area, the EP is conditioned to be revocable, and the property owner is obligated to remove the private improvement/encroachment.

3. The existing encroachment has been in the City’s right-of-way for many years without any known complaints from the public and is consistent with the appearance of other properties in the area.

4. The existing encroachment is consistent with other fences located in the community and as a result will not cause any unnecessary changes to the character of the community. Many properties have fences abutting Hoska Alley as a form of privacy and acting as a safety barrier due to the alley being at a higher grade than many of the backyards of the properties abutting the alley.

5. The private improvement has not and will not interfere with any present or future public use. The encroachment does not interfere with existing public use of the surrounding right-of-way. Public Works staff overseeing the CIP confirmed that the wooden fence on this property did not need to be removed in its entirety to complete the storm drain project and that the existing encroachments to be authorized with this EP will not interfere with City operations/infrastructure.

6. The existing encroachment extends approximately seven and a half (7.5) four (4) feet into the public alley at the southwest corner of the fence. The fence is located at the top of a very steep slope at the southern portion of the property. The dedicated width of Hoska Alley is 20 feet and at 401 9th Street, the traversable width of the Alley on February 3, 2025 Item 07
Resolution 2025-XX

Page 3 of 6 ends

foot is approximately 12.5 16 feet with the wooden fence in its current location. The fencing in its current location provides a benefit to public safety and moving it to the respective private property boundary would expose a steep slope and would remove the safety barrier that currently exists.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council that approval of EP24-106 shall be subject to the following conditions:

General Encroachment Conditions:

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

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

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

GEP-11[EP - Compliance with City Codes and Permit Conditions] Any person violating any provisions of or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Permit or of DMMC Chapter 23.28 shall be subject to the enforcement provisions set forth in DMMC Chapters 1.08 and 30.98.

GEP-12[EP - Change of Permit Conditions at Direction of the City] The City retains the right to change conditions of this Permit granted and order the relocation or adjustment of lines, manholes, fixtures, and apparatus hereby allowed to be installed, whenever, in the opinion of the City, this becomes necessary; and desirable. In the event that such an order is made, all changes required pursuant thereto shall be made at the sole expense of the Permittee.

February 3, 2025 Item 07
Resolution 2025-XX

Page 4 of 6 ends

GEP-15[EP - No Transfer in Property Interest]
The granting of an encroachment permit pursuant to this chapter shall not constitute the transfer or relinquishment of any ownership or interest held by the City over the public rightof-way, nor shall such permit confer any vested or proprietary rights upon the holder of the permit beyond the right to utilize the encroachment area in the manner authorized by the permit and subject to all of the conditions set forth herein.

Document Conditions:

DC-1 [Recordation of a Covenant]
Within sixty (60) days of final EP approval, the applicant shall record a covenant (at the applicant’s expense) against the deed for the property benefited by the approved Encroachment Permit setting forth the terms and conditions of the Permit, including the requirement for applicant’s maintenance/responsibility and removal of the encroachment upon demand by the City. The covenant shall run with the land and shall be binding on future owners and assigns. The form and content of the covenant shall be to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and City Manager.

Special Conditions:

SP-2 [Encroachment Permit Revocation]
At the City’s discretion, the Encroachment Permit may be revoked at any time and the property owner will be required to remove the private improvement from the City right-ofway.

Public Works Conditions:

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

The permittee is advised that the locations of utility lines may vary from those shown on approved project plans and that coordination with the appropriate utility companies is, therefore, imperative. Any damage or repair thereof to utility lines caused as a result of project implementation shall be the permittee’s responsibility. The applicant shall be responsible for removing or blocking out all pavement markings installed for the project immediately upon completion of the work authorized in the Encroachment Permit. Should a utility conflict be present, then the Contractor shall contact the Engineer of Work February 3, 2025 Item 07
Resolution 2025-XX

Page 5 of 6 ends

immediately, in order to provide sufficient time for a redesign and approval of construction change.

PW-6 [Location of Walls & Fences]
No walls, wall footings or fences shall be constructed within the Public Right of Way.

PW-17 [Public Works Inspection]
Permittee shall schedule inspections with the Public Works, through MBI at (760) 603- 6264, at least 24 hours prior to need as follows:
a. Sidewalk, Driveway, Curb and Gutter and other Concrete Work Pre-pour and Final b. Street Excavation T-Cut and Final
c. Sewer Lateral Capping during Demolition and New Lateral Connection to Main d. Water- Cross Connection Inspection prior to final.
e. All Other Encroachment Activity Final
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, State of California, at a Regular Meeting held on the 3rd day of February 2025. ____________________________
Terry Gaasterland, Mayor
City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
February 3, 2025 Item 07
Resolution 2025-XX

Page 6 of 6 ends

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. 2025-XX, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 3rd day of February 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

RECUSE:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
February 3, 2025 Item 07
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL
MAR, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 24-
107 TO RETAIN AN EXISTING WOODEN FENCE THAT EXTENDS

INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
THE PROPERTY AT 405 9TH STREET (APN: 300-222-09-00) IN

DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar (City) is the owner of the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, Ken Huettner (Applicant) has filed an application for an Encroachment Permit (EP24-107) seeking approval to allow the existing wooden fence on the south side of the property to remain within the public right-of-way (Project); and WHEREAS, the property does not have an approved Encroachment Permit for the existing fence in the right-of-way on the south side of the property; and WHEREAS, Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 23.28 requires an Encroachment Permit (EP) for any private improvements within the public right-of-way; specifically, any improvements that extend at least 12 inches above the level of the sidewalk, roadway, or adjacent grade require City Council approval; and WHEREAS, Section 23.28.070 of the DMMC provides that an Encroachment Permit may be approved or conditionally approved only if the Council makes all of the findings set forth in Section 23.28.070(C) as noted in the below; and WHEREAS, in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is listed among the classes of projects determined to have less than significant adverse effect on the environment and, therefore, is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Class 1 – Existing Facilities in that the project proposes retaining an existing encroachment by an accessory structure (fence); and WHEREAS, on February 3, 2025, the City Council of the City of Del Mar held a duly noticed public hearing to review the referenced entitlements, and at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, oral and written evidence was submitted and considered to include without limitation:
a. Plans developed by the City;
b. Written information submitted with the application;
c. Agenda Report, dated February 3, 2025, incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein; and
e. Additional information submitted and testimony provided during the hearing.

February 3, 2025 Item 07
Resolution 2025-XX

Page 2 of 6 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar that Encroachment Permit EP24-106 is hereby approved based on the following findings in DMMC Chapter 23.28.070(C):

Findings:

2. The existing encroachment that would be authorized under the EP will not unreasonably interfere with the use of the alley and will not block the accessible route of travel because there are no plans to develop the western 450 feet of the public right-of-way. This portion of Hoska Alley is only traversable on foot and has no feasible public exit to the west. Once the Hoska Alley Street and Storm Drain Improvement Project (Project) is completed, native hydroseed will be planted from Camino del Mar to 333 9th St. that will grow out into native vegetation in the alley.

3. The existing encroachment has been in the City’s right-of-way for many years without any known complaints from the public and is consistent with the appearance of other properties in the area.

5. The private improvement has not and will not interfere with any present or future public use. The encroachment does not interfere with existing public use of the surrounding right-of-way. Public Works staff overseeing the Hoska Alley Project confirmed that the existing wooden fence encroachments to be authorized with this EP will not interfere with City operations/infrastructure.

6. The existing encroachment extends approximately four (4) three (3) feet into the public alley at the southeast corner of the fence. The fence is located at the top of a very steep slope at the southern portion of the property. The dedicated width of Hoska Alley is 20 feet and at 405 9th Street, the traversable width of the alley is approximately 16 17 feet with the wooden fence in its current location. The fencing February 3, 2025 Item 07
Resolution 2025-XX

Page 3 of 6 ends

in its current location provides a benefit to public safety and moving it to the respective private property boundaries would expose a steep slope and would remove the safety barrier that currently exists.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council that approval of EP24-106 shall be subject to the following conditions:

General Encroachment Conditions:

GEP-15[EP - No Transfer in Property Interest]
February 3, 2025 Item 07
Resolution 2025-XX

Page 4 of 6 ends

The granting of an encroachment permit pursuant to this chapter shall not constitute the transfer or relinquishment of any ownership or interest held by the City over the public rightof-way, nor shall such permit confer any vested or proprietary rights upon the holder of the permit beyond the right to utilize the encroachment area in the manner authorized by the permit and subject to all of the conditions set forth herein.

Document Conditions:

Special Conditions:

Public Works Conditions:

February 3, 2025 Item 07
Resolution 2025-XX

Page 5 of 6 ends

PW-6 [Location of Walls & Fences]
No walls, wall footings or fences shall be constructed within the Public Right of Way.

Page 6 of 6 ends

ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

AYES:

NOES:

RECUSE:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
February 3, 2025 Item 07
1 Melinda Gould
From: Tate Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2025 11:20 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Item #8 UP Financing Options
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Del Mar City Council
1050 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Subject: Red Dot for Item [08] – Request for a Conventional Financial Analysis and Resident Vote on Undergrounding Project
Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members, and Staff,
I am submitting this red dot comment for Item [08] regarding the financing options for the Undergrounding Project. As a resident of Crest Canyon, I will directly benefit from undergrounding due to both fire safety and aesthetic improvements—I currently have three utility poles on my property. Additionally, I am already being assessed as part of a special assessment district created to use public funds to repair a private road—San Dieguito Drive (SDD)—which is dependent on the undergrounding project’s financing.

Let me be clear: I strongly support undergrounding and recognize its value for fire safety, aesthetics, and long-term infrastructure resilience. I also acknowledge that the Council has a critical responsibility to protect residents from wildfire risks. However, ensuring fire safety does not mean abandoning financial responsibility. The two must go hand in hand, and reckless financial decisions today could jeopardize the City's ability to fund future safety measures, emergency services, and other essential needs.

The Need for Fire Safety and Financial Responsibility
I have previously written to express concerns about the lack of proper financial modeling.

Only after requesting a sensitivity analysis was one provided—yet, it was highly unconventional in that it measured cost changes in years of delay rather than total cost increases. This masks the true financial impact of cost overruns by failing to quantify how much additional money the City would need to spend.

February 3, 2025 Item 08
2 Even within this flawed framework, the analysis clearly showed that a mere 0.5% increase in costs would result in a 10-year delay. Given SDG&E’s history of cost overruns, it is highly probable that costs will increase by more than 0.5%. If costs rise by just 1%, the analysis suggests a 20-year delay—which is entirely unsustainable.

This means that borrowing money now, knowing cost escalations are likely, will only lead to more borrowing and further delays, as the City will continuously have to “chase” completing the undergrounding project. Instead of ensuring timely completion, this approach increases financial risk and could ultimately cost far more than anticipated. Worse, it could consume Measure Q revenues AND put the City’s overall reserves at risk, jeopardizing Del Mar’s longterm financial health.

I remain mystified as to why a conventional financial analysis has not been performed—one that would clearly show the full impact of this project on the City’s financial position. A proper financial analysis would provide transparency into how various cost scenarios affect the City’s long-term ability to finance essential services and infrastructure. Further, and quite importantly it would highlight the points of risk and enable consideration of mitigation strategies.

The Risk of Using Public Assets as Collateral
Additionally, the proposal to use City assets as collateral to secure the financing further compounds the risk. While I understand that some may argue this is standard municipal financing practice, in this case, it exposes Del Mar’s public assets to financial uncertainty, especially if Measure Q revenues underperform or undergrounding costs escalate further.

Given that the current financial model already suggests potential long-term delays, leveraging public assets could force the City into even more debt or force cutbacks on critical services in the future.

The best way to ensure long-term fire safety is not to take on unsustainable debt, but rather to pursue a responsible financial plan that ensures undergrounding can be completed without jeopardizing Del Mar’s financial health.

Request for a Proper Financial Review and Public Vote
For these reasons, I formally request that a conventional financial analysis be conducted and presented to residents before any final financing decisions are made. This analysis should include:

1. A true NPV calculation that properly discounts future costs in the context of all of Del Mar’s financial future and not just this project,

2. A standard sensitivity analysis that shows the impact of cost and revenue variations in dollar terms, not just timeline delays,

3. A clear debt sustainability review, demonstrating how future borrowing would affect Measure Q reserves and the City’s financial health.

February 3, 2025 Item 08
3 Given the significant financial implications, the proposed use of public assets as collateral, and the long-term debt commitments involved, I urge the City Council to place this matter on the ballot for a public vote. This decision will have lasting financial consequences for the City and its residents, and it should not be made without full transparency and community input.

I appreciate the City’s efforts to move undergrounding forward, and I look forward to a more rigorous and conventional financial review and a public vote on this critical issue. Let’s make sure we move forward on undergrounding with our eyes wide open and fully informed of all the costs and risks along with strategies to reduce both.

Sincerely,
Tate Scott
Del Mar, CA 92014
February 3, 2025 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: mark rittenbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2025 11:32 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Terry Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; John Spelich; Dan Quirk; Ashley Jones; Laura DeMarco; Shirli Weiss
Subject: Fwd: Utility Undergrounding- red dot
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> Dear Honorable Members of The Del Mar City Council, Chairpersons of The Finance and Undergrounding Program Advisory Committees, and City Manager,
>
> I am writing to respectfully request the following questions/ comments be addressed , as normal course due diligence and exercise of fiduciary responsibility, regarding the potential financing of the undergrounding of districts X1A, 1B, and/or the overall project. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary work that both the undergrounding and finance committees and staff have put in to date regarding the project, and these comments are by no means meant to disparage that work.
>
> My comments principally center around the risks of financing to either the the project itself or the to the overall financial health the the City. My understanding that at this time City Council is requested to evaluate financing for Projects X1A and 1B only.
>
> Blinding glimpses of the obvious, the economics surrounding undergrounding are significantly challenged if not broken, with an estimated $100 million project cost ( in today’s $) to be funded by annual Measure Q revenues estimated at $3.5 million. The current project completion on a pay as you go basis is 2059. Compare this to an estimated project cost of $25-$30 million, and forecasted measure Q revenue of $2,5 million, when Measurer Q was passed in 2017, and a project completion of 2031-2045 made as recent as 2019. >
> This is further exacerbated by potential upward cost pressures and past unreliability in cost estimates, along with potential downward pressure on revenue estimates due to either potential unforeseen circumstances ( such as witnessed in the recent pandemic) or foreseen and potentially very real circumstances, such if the rail realignment where to economically devastate the City and its finances for a number of years. > And of course inflation is a negative drag, as 3% inflation on a $100 million cost is $ 3 million, whereas on $3.5 million revenue is $87,500 which is then compounded annually.
>
> Quite a delimma…..BUT, there are inherent risks associated with borrowing money ( more so in an uncertain environment ) , and these risks should be discussed .
> Borrowing money for the whole project to avoid potential inflationary effects or accelerate project completion in and of itself is a very risky, if not bad strategy, that also burdens future generations. >
> This is all by way of saying that I believe it is important that the City and its citizens know what’s it is getting into with financing, that risks be clearly identified, and that there a NO unintended consequences of financing. >
February 3, 2025 Item 08
2 > Background:
>
> 1. Please provide a financial update for The City including a current balance sheet and pro forma balance sheet (post financing), current debt rating of the City, and whether the financing is anticipated to affect this debt rating , or ability to borrow funds in the future ( see 3. Below).
>
>
> 2. Master Lease Financings require the City to pledge income producing assets as collateral. Please provide a list and estimated value of all such unencumbered assets, and what assets will be available post financing for potential future financings.
>
> 3. Please confirm the impetus for financing X1A is principally related to fire risk.Please comment as to whether any districts other than X1A are considered high fire risk. >
> 4. Based on current timelines and cost and revenue estimates, when might the Committees and City Council be asked to evaluate financing of District 2, if project delays were to otherwise occur. >
> 5. Previously, City Council prioritized Measure Q monies for undergrounding of utility poles citywide, Downtown Streetscape, and Shores Park Master Plan. Do any Measure Q monies need to be allocated to the last 2 priorities , or is all Measure Q revenue available for undegrounding?

6. Does a public offering require voter approval ?
>
> Debt Financing of Pole Undergrounding of Districts X1A and 1B >
> 1. Please explain how it is ensured that only Measure Q funds are used to for the Project and debt servicing, since the financing will be recourse to the general fund ? If things go really bad, it appears the general fund is at risk.

2. If project costs of X1A and 1B come in higher than the estimated $23 million, will the gap be filled by borrowing more money, or by Measure Q funds? If more money is to borrowed, then Council should consider limits on the amounts to be borrowed ( $20 million ??). The answer to this question also ties into the sensitivity analyses and downside scenarios that were performed.

3. Financial Stress Test ( Page 9) indicates “ the annual debt service payment of a 15 year loan ( highest debt service payment ) represents 47% of Measure Q revenue in 2024”. Per the query in 1 above does this statement assume $17 million is borrowed ? Again if costs run higher than anticipated will more be borrowed , thus affecting the analysis. Or is it a correct statement that in all cases only $ 17 million will be borrowed for X1A and 1B and Measure Q revenues would have to drop to 47% of 2024 amounts to put the general fund at risk? > 4. If more than $17 million will be borrowed if there are cost overruns , please provide several more extreme downside scenarios beyond that previously provided to illlustrate: 1) at what point City’s general fund is not insulated such that only Measure Q funds will be used to fund the debt servicing and 2) the effect on the debt required, debt maturity date and project completion date . Is there a downside scenario where total project completion is longer with debt financing than pay as you go?
>
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
> Respectfully,
> Mark Rittenbaum
February 3, 2025 Item 08
3 > Serpentine Dr
> Del Mar CA
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
February 3, 2025 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Item 8 Red Dot: Support financing of undergrounding X1A highest wildfire hazard zone
From: Laura DeMarco <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2025 11:50 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 8 Red Dot: Support financing of undergrounding X1A highest wildfire hazard zone CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Council Members and Staff,
Improving public safety is the duty and responsibility of the city of Del Mar. That is why Del Mar citizens overwhelmingly voted for the Measure Q sales tax measure to give the city the ability to finance undergrounding power lines, especially in the highest wildfire hazard areas.

The recent Eaton wildfire reminded us of the danger to our entire community during high wind storms as video showed the ignition of the fire from sparks falling from arcing transmission lines on to brush below: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1WP4It7uUNs
The wind-driven fire quickly swept through and destroyed entire neighborhoods and Altadena’s charming commercial district filled with older wood structures built long before stricter fire-safe building codes were enacted in 2010. As shown in the chart below, over 96% of Del Mar’s housing stock is similarly vulnerable as it was built before 2010.

February 3, 2025 Item 08
2 Despite the best efforts of first responders and family members to evacuate the most vulnerable, most of the 27 people who died in the Eaton and Palisades fire were seniors over the age of 65 and/or the disabled with limited mobility. It was tragic listening to the emergency scanner communications broadcast during the first day of the Palisades fire when many of the calls were for evacuations of elderly and disabled residents at specific addresses throughout the Palisades and Malibu. As shown in the attached chart, Del Mar also has a large number of vulnerable seniors as 30% or 652 households are headed by seniors, including 186 living alone. In addition, 7.9% have disabilities.

February 3, 2025 Item 08
3 As Del Mar fire chiefs noted in their letters included in the staff report, they recommend removing dangerous overhead power lines in the highest wildfire hazard area of X1A. It is one of many steps needed to reduce wildfire risk that threatens to sweep from Crest Canyon to oceanfront houses during wind-driven infernos like the Palisades and Laguna fires. In addition to removing sources of ignition like powerlines, please enact policies recommended by the California Fire Safety Council and help organize a Del Mar Fire Safety Council to reduce wildfire risk and enable property owners to protect and insure their homes and businesses: https://firesafesdcounty.org/event/fire-safety-workshop/ Bottom line, please protect our community and select the best financing vehicle available to remove overhead highvoltage transmission lines, energized power lines, and corroded transformers from our brush-filled canyons, streets lined with flammable Eucalyptus and Torrey Pines, and neighborhoods continually buffetted by corrosive ocean air that causes transformers to explode and live powerlines to fall. Timeliness is critical in reducing costs as long-term interest rates are predicted to rise, construction costs escalate, and inflation ravages our purchasing power.

Thanks for your consideration,
Laura
February 3, 2025 Item 08

January 31, 2025
City of Del Mar
City Council Agenda
February 3, 2025
Item #8–Utilities Undergrounding Financing
Red Dot 🔴 Letter from 62 Residents of UUD X1A
Dear Mayor Gaasterland and Councilmembers,
As residents of Crest Canyon, Crest Road and the adjacent streets within Utilities Undergrounding District (UUD) X1A, we urge you to please move forward with borrowing the funds necessary to ensure that our utilities in these critical areas can be undergrounded as soon as possible. This includes engaging with NHA Advisors, so that they can serve as municipal advisor in arranging the most beneficial financing arrangement for the City. Given the serious fire and public safety risks of above-ground utility poles in these two areas—as clearly expressed by our current and former fire chiefs—it is in the best interests of the City and all Del Mar residents to begin construction as soon as possible.

As you all know, given the wildfire-related public safety issues, the Crest Road/Crest Canyon UUD was deemed a high priority by the Council in August 2019. In December 2023, the Council voted unanimously to authorize construction of UUD 1A and X1A on a gowhen-ready basis. Recently, the City’s UPAC and Finance committees voted to recommend that the City obtain financing so that X1A undergrounding construction can begin.

Recently, we have witnessed the catastrophic wildfires in LA, which have killed at least 29 residents and have destroyed more than 16,000 homes. In the coastal town of the Pacific Palisades, the sheer devastation that hurricane-force Santa Ana winds can cause, spreading embers and driving fires all the way to the beach, should serve as proof that a major fire is an existential threat to all of Del Mar, not just residents of the canyon and the hill. These tragic events emphasize the significance of Finance Committee member
February 3, 2025 Item 08
Laura De Marco’s previous comment that the additional financing costs incurred in completing UUD X1A, pale in comparison to the economic devastation that could occur if utilities were to cause a wildfire that engulfed Del Mar.

As members of the UPAC committee have stated, the costs of delaying this important project are not only risky from a public safety perspective, they could also add significant new costs, since engineering design plans have a limited life and environmental studies are tied to the engineering design. Like many areas of Southern California, we may not be able to eliminate our fire risk.

However, it is clear that we need to exercise greater vigilance, and move as quickly as we can to reduce the risks we can. The undergrounding of our utilities should be our top priority but it should be followed by a more comprehensive wildfire prevention plan for Del Mar. Such a plan will be needed to ensure that adequate home insurance is available in the future.

We urge you to please vote to move forward with financing. A vote for financing is also a vote to protect Del Mar from wildfires and protect our property values.

Sincerely,
Richard & Dolores
Davies Jamison
Crest Road
Barbara & Joe Harper
Crest Road
Shirley King & Art Olson
Avenida Primavera
Beth Levine
Crest Road
Amy Cheshire
San Dieguito Road
Judy & Marc Schuckit
Kalamath Drive
Sally & Ron Taylor
Crest Road
Rosanne Holliday
Crest Road
February 3, 2025 Item 08
Ann Garland
& Saul Levine
San Dieguito Drive
Julie Korsmeyer
Oribia Road
Majid Kharrati &
Sheri Babaki
Oribia Road
Tom &
Jackie Bruskotter
Crest Road
Ula Tuszewicka
Serpentine Drive
Linda & Frank Chisari
Crest Road
Jason Dempsey
Crest Road
John & Gale Graybill
15th Street
Joan & Craig Brown
Crest Road
Suzi & Stan Resnick
Crest Road
River Cohen
Crest Road
John Winfield
Crest Road
Scott & Lisa Renner
Via Alta
Steve & Ellen Mitgang
Crest Road
Will Holliday
Crest Road
Fran & Nick Frost
Crest Road
Katharine Sohn
Crest Road
February 3, 2025 Item 08
Barb & Tim Davis
Kalamath Drive
Howard Appel
Crest Road
Susan & Don Instone
Crest Road
Gloria Sandvik
& Harold Feder
Mark Raby
Crest Road
Judd & Susan Halenza
15th Street
Julie Singletary
Crest Road
Allan & Susan Wegner
Crest Road
Nicole & Ari Gesher
Crest Road
Bertha &
Robert Leone
Crest Road
Barbara Paulovich
Crest Road
Meggan Gallan
Avenida Primavera
Rose Ann Sharp
Crest Road
Tom Hollander &
Delene St. John
Crest Road
Ula Tuszewicka
Crest Road
Brian Orcholski
Crest Road

February 3, 2025 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: RED DOT: Undergrounding
From: Kimberly Jackson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2025 6:57 PM
To: Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>; Ashley Jones <[email protected]> Subject: RED DOT: Undergrounding
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Gaasterland & Council Members:

As residents of Crest Canyon, Crest Road and the adjacent streets within and near Utilities Undergrounding District (UUD) X1A, we urge you to please move forward with an accelerated financing option so that our utilities in these critical areas can be undergrounded as soon as possible. Given the serious fire and public safety risks of above-ground utility poles in these two areas, it is clearly in the best interests of all Del Mar residents to begin construction as soon as possible.

As you all know, given the wildfire-related public safety issues, the Crest Road/Crest Canyon UUD was deemed a high priority by the Council in August 2019. In December 2023, the Council voted unanimously to authorize City construction of UUD 1A and X1A on a go-when-ready basis. Recently, the City’s UPAC and Finance committees voted to recommend that the City obtain financing so that X1A undergrounding construction can begin.

Recently, we have witnessed the catastrophic wildfires in LA, which have killed at least 29 residents and have destroyed more than 16,000 homes. In the coastal town of the Pacific Palisades, the sheer devastation that hurricane-force Santa Ana winds can cause, spreading embers and driving fires all the way to the beach, should serve as proof that a major fire is an existential threat to all of Del Mar, not just residents of the canyon and the hill. These tragic events emphasize the significance of Finance Committee member Laura De Marco’s previous comment that the additional financing costs incurred in completing UUD X1A, pale in comparison to the economic devastation that could occur if utilities were to cause a wildfire that engulfed Del Mar.

The undergrounding of our utilities should be our top priority but it should be followed by a more comprehensive wildfire prevention plan for Del Mar.

February 3, 2025 Item 08
2 We urge you to please vote to move forward with financing. A vote for financing is also a vote to protect Del Mar from wildfires.

Sincerely,
Kimberly Jackson

FOUNDER
Vacation Rental Management
(503) 957-9354
[email protected]
www.vacationrentalsbykimberly.com
February 3, 2025 Item 08
From: Dolores Davies <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2025 9:10 AM
To: Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>; Tracy Martinez <[email protected]>; John Spelich <[email protected]>; Dan Quirk <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk Mail Box <[email protected]>; Ashley Jones <[email protected]> Subject: Red Dot Item #8, Feb. 3, 2025 Agenda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To Mayor Gaasterland and Councilmembers:

This afternoon, we took a walk through Crest Canyon to see where some of the power lines were relative to Torrey Pine trees and other native plantings. Although there are more than 70 utility poles in UUD X1A, our observations are limited to Crest Canyon and Crest Road from the canyon access trail at Hoska Drive to just north of Amphitheatre Drive, where the high voltage lines descend into the canyon. This part of the canyon has no vehicular access.

Not surprisingly, the foliage in the canyon is extremely dry, especially the chaparral. There was no evidence of any recent brush management activity under or near the high voltage lines we observed, however it did appear that some minor pruning of Torrey Pines had occurred to avoid direct contact with high voltage lines.

Several of the Torrey Pines growing on the upward slope of the canyon appeared to tower over the high voltage lines and would very likely take down some poles if they were to fall on the power lines.

A few of the Torrey Pines near the high voltage lines appeared to be in poor health.

The following photos were taken to document our observations. If any of you have not taken a walk through Crest Canyon recently, we would recommend it, and would be happy to provide guidance.

Seeing the proximity of the power lines—especially the high voltage ones—to the trees, the chaparral, and other vegetation on the steep upward slope of the canyon sent a clear signal to us of the serious fire risk facing Del Mar and its residents. While we realize this risk cannot be eliminated, it is hard to see what we’ve described above and not feel that at least a serious risk could be reduced if the power lines were undergrounded.

Sincerely,
February 3, 2025 Item 08
Richard & Dolores Davies Jamison
Crest Road
February 3, 2025 Item 08
February 3, 2025 Item 08
February 3, 2025 Item 08
February 3, 2025 Item 08
February 3, 2025 Item 08
February 3, 2025 Item 08
February 3, 2025 Item 08
February 3, 2025 Item 08
February 3, 2025 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Ann Williamson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2025 4:46 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: City Council Meeting Feb 3, 2025 Item 8, Consideration of Undergrounding Program Financing Options
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dar Mayor and City Council Members,
I live in the Crest Canyon neighborhood, so of course the X1A undergrounding is important to me for fire prevention. In addition, the X1A undergrounding is tied to the San Dieguito Drive assessment district to repair San Dieguito Road to standards so it will be accepted as a City street. When we voted for the assessment district we put our faith in City Council that you would make this project work. It appears that you will need to obtain X1A financing to do that, so I urge you to obtain that financing now.

Thank you for all your work on this project.
---Ann Williamson
Oribia Road
February 3, 2025 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Catherine George <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2025 5:38 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Agenda Item #8
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

As a project manager of construction, I would like to know the exact costs of this project. Material and labor broken out. This is industry standard and anything less means you are hiding kick backs, payments to developers perhaps. It just looks bad on you and again, proving yourselves to be bad leaders and bad for Del Mar.

Maybe you guys didnt get the message that President Trump is the new sheriff in town and waste will no longer be tolerated. In fact, this is a perfect project for DOGE to look into….

Catherine George
February 3, 2025 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Peter Cramton <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2025 9:47 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Terry TG. Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; John Spelich-private; Dan Quirk
Subject: Red Dot for 3 Feb 2025, Item 8, Undergrounding Financing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing as an expert in economics and finance. I conduct research in these disciplines; see cramton.umd.edu.

Undergrounding and its financing are among the most important topics the Council will address in the next several years. Fortunately, finding the best solution in this matter is among the easiest. The train and affordable housing are a different matter.

The finance committee has reviewed professional analysis, heard testimony, and studied the issue at length.

During its recent meeting, the chair made excellent comments on the topic.

The consensus of the Del Mar residents is that undergrounding is valuable to current and future residents, more than justifying its significant cost, which sadly is increasing. The remaining issue is the timing and financing of the task.

The answer is simple: as soon as possible and with a financing path that manages risk. A few residents and one finance committee member voiced concern about debt obligations longer than twenty years posing a burden on future generations. One even said that undergrounding was a depreciating asset. These concerns are unfounded.

Undergrounding is an enduring asset. It will be enjoyed without loss today and in all future years. Your land and undergrounding endure. Undergrounding is largely impervious to fire, flood, and earthquake. The high cost of undergrounding is trenching, not the cables and utility box. The benefits of trenching last forever. Second, the talented Del Mar staff, with the oversight of the Council, can and will take steps to minimize the debt cost through optimal financial planning. This is standard and seen in the work done today. The key is to recognize transaction costs, take advantage of our municipal status, and stage debt contracts so as not to put all our eggs in one basket.

I have every reason to believe that standard tasks will be properly managed.

In sum, if undergrounding is worth doing, and the residents agree, it should be done as soon as possible. This means using debt financing. Following this path is not a burden to future generations but a reward to our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren for the intelligence of your decision-making today.

Thank you for serving the community.

Kind regards,
Peter
901 Highland Ave, Del Mar, CA 92014
Peter Cramton
[email protected] cramton.umd.edu +1 530 408 6698
University of Maryland and Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods February 3, 2025 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: deftos <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 9:19 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Item 8
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Del Mar City Council,
Millions of dollars of public money has been slated to be spent and is now being considered to be spent on two projects within and adjacent to Crest Canyon:
the San Dieguito Drive Replacement Project and Utility Undergrounding of the XIA District. This raises the questions of whether this concentrated expenditure is an appropriate use of public funds, whether the projects will substantially achieve their stated public benefits, and, in the case of Utility Undergrounding, whether the possibility of incurring debt to fund the project was implicitly approved by the Del Mar electorate when it passed Measure Q.

The San Dieguito Drive Replacement Project involves using a combination of public and private funds to repair a private road, which current and prior owners let fall into disrepair. Whether private ownership of the road will be maintained and what rights this would provide the owners is not clear. The primary public benefit of this project is improved access for emergency vehicles, particularly fire trucks, which could help fight a fire in Crest Canyon and prevent it from spreading elsewhere in the city. The steep hillside of Crest Canyon increases this risk.

However, the current condition of the road does not apper to limit fire truck access and aerial firefighting would likely play a major role in fighting a fire in this difficult to access area.

The primary public benefit of Utility Undergrounding of the XIA District is also fire safety. As with the San Dieguito Drive Replacement Project, this benefit is highest for residents in the immediate area, and decreases with distance from Crest Canyon. (Residents in the area would also substantially benefit from improved neighborhood aesthetics.) The fire safety benefit is primarily from mitigation of the hazard of downed power lines starting fires, particularly power lines blown down by Santa Ana winds during the fire season. The actual risk of this is not clear. The history of large, destructive fires triggered by high voltage transmission lines in areas with extensive flammable vegetation is well known. Less clear is the risk of lower voltage distribution lines in residential areas such as Del Mar. Santa Ana February 3, 2025 Item 08
2 winds are not new. There has been plenty of time for this risk to manifest. Has a power line in Del Mar ever been directly blown down by the wind, or started a fire? The fire hazard of power lines in Del Mar is probably more related to their proximity to tall vegetation than to their risk of being directly blown down by wind.

Wind events can cause branches or entire trees to fall onto power lines. For example, a large Torrey Pine blown down by a winter storm recently took down a power line near Crest Road. This risk can be mitigated by appropriate pruning and/or removal of large trees that pose such a risk.

The staff report states Del Mar is classified as a Tier 1 (lowest risk) high fire threat district (HFTD) by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and that SDG&E primarily focuses on managing risk in Tier 3 locations. Who is responsible for managing the fire risk of existing power lines in Del Mar? Does the City have a program to manage vegetation adjacent to power lines? How are neighboring cities, which also have fire risks associated with adjacent open space areas, mitigating this fire risk? Del Mar’s Urban Forest Management and Fire Safety Plan has not been updated for 25 years.

Even with utility lines underground, vegetation, particularly large Eucalyptus and Torrey Pines, pose a fire hazard to the City, increasing the risk of propagation of fires started by any cause. Despite this, a goal of our Climate Action Plan, supported by many who are concerned about the City’s fire risk, is to increase the urban canopy 3-fold, which would likely increase this risk.

Instead of borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars to fund Utility Undergrounding, perhaps it would be wiser to first spend resources on other measures to mitigate fire hazard risks. This could include programs that support fuel load reduction, codification of a requirement to maintain defensible spaces around structures (including the important Zero Zone), and appropriate maintenance of vegetation around utility lines. Expenditure of Measure Q funds for “fire safety” services was specifically mentioned in its ballot language.

Without such measures, after spending many millions of dollars of public money on Utility Undergrounding, and incurring substantial debt, Del Mar would still have substantial fire risk. A more granular study of city power lines to determine their specific risk of being directly blown down by Santa Ana winds, and specific mitigation measures to address those with elevated risk (such as fortifying these lines), seems more prudent given limited resources.

There is substantial new information since Measure Q was passed almost 10 years ago: the costs of utility undergrounding is substantially higher than was thought at the time and completion of the project in a reasonable timeframe will now February 3, 2025 Item 08
3 require funding through a loan. The City is now considering a “lease obligation” as a financing mechanism to workaround the debt limit imposed by the California Constitution. While this might be a “very common municipal practice,” it was not mentioned in the Measure Q ballot language. Instead, the stated purpose of Measure Q was to “provide funding for general city services and infrastructure projects, such as improvement of streets and sidewalks, utility undergrounding, public landscapes, improvement of community parks, trails and recreation facilities; police, crime prevention, fire protection and other public safety services...” There is no mention of using a loan to fund Utility Undergrounding and Measure Q revenue to service the loan. The ballot measure also indicated the funds would be spent on a variety of projects and not committed overwhelmingly to Utility Undergrounding. If the ballot measure language had accurately reflected how the city is now considering using Measure Q funds, it is not known if the measure would have passed. Given this, it seem very reasonable to put the question to a vote of the Del Mar electorate. Going forward, should Measure Q funds be overwhelmingly used to service a loan necessary to fund Utility Undergrounding rather than on the panoply of services and projects mentioned in the original ballot language? Finally, if the City Council decides to pursue financing of Utility Undergrounding through a “lease obligation,” what city property does it intend to lease out and simultaneously lease back at a fair rental value to generate payments sufficient to service the debt of the “lease obligation” financing mechanism? How much per year would that fictitious fair market lease be? Thanks for your consideration,
Michael Deftos
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
February 3, 2025 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Don Moser <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 9:56 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Del Mar under-grounding
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please open the process for unit cost approach for undergrounding and provide transparency to this process
Don moser
226 24th St
Del Mar CA
Don
Don Moser
858-229-3456
1 February 3, 2025 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Joseph Potocki <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 10:07 AM
To: Terry Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; John Spelich; Dan Quirk Cc: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Item #8, Feb. 3, 2025 Agenda
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable Council Members
We are long-term owners in Del Mar. We oppose borrowing money to finance this project. Measure Q was enacted to provide funding for the undergrounding project. The city should not be borrowing additional money on top of the amount being collected through Measure Q. A loan should not be obtained to and for the benefit a limited number of owners who want this project done in their neighborhood. Further, we question why the cost that was initially estimated for the entire project has significantly increase beyond any reasonable amount even accounting for inflation and increased labor costs. There needs to be transparency and full disclosure on the cost and there should be consideration given to alternative options that would be more cost eective to accomplish the objective of the Measure Q funding. We urge you to vote against taking a loan out for this work that benefits only a few. Thank you for consideration of our position.

Respectfully
JOSEPH P. POTOCKI
9665 Chesapeake Dr., Suite 305, San Diego, CA 92123
T: (858) 222-8236 EXT. 104
cbtp-law.com
February 3, 2025 Item 08
Red Dot Letter – Agenda Item 8 - Consideration of Undergrounding Program Financing Options Dear Mayor Gaasterland and Councilmembers Martinez, Quirk and Spelich:

I am writing this letter to re-affirm my support for moving forward today with financing the Undergrounding Program (UP) in districts X1A (Crest Canyon) and 1B (Stratford North). I believe there are no compelling reasons to delay the decision to move forward with construction in these UP districts at this time.

There are a few residents who have expressed their concern about financing these UP districts with statements about “reckless financial decisions” and the “overall financial health of the City.” At the time Measure Q was approved by the voters of Del Mar it was understood that the purpose of the 1% sales tax was to provide a dedicated source of additional revenue for long-term infrastructure projects. It was also understood at that time that this revenue stream could be used to finance large projects which would necessarily require collateral for a loan.

Financing the next two phases of UP construction has been thoroughly modeled and analyzed as you’ve seen in the excellent presentation by City Staff. A joint meeting of the Finance and UPAC committees voted almost unanimously to recommend financing construction of X1A and 1B.

Future phases (UUDs 2 – 5) will be similarly modeled and analyzed before they can receive the green light from City Council. Any concerns about the “overall financial health of the City” can be answered at each stage of construction of the UP. This initial borrowing of $17 million can be paid back to the City in less than a decade from Measure Q revenues if future City Councils decide to halt the UP for any reason.

The greatest current existential threat to the City of Del Mar would be if the above ground utility poles in Crest Canyon sparked a wildland fire during a Santa Ana event and the fire spread westward throughout the city. Delaying utility undergrounding in Crest Canyon for three years to avoid financing the construction makes no sense to me for this reason alone.

A few voices have suggested that Del Mar residents should take a vote on whether to finance the UP. We have already voted on and approved the Measure Q tax which will fund this project. A revote would only divide the community into those residents whose streets have already been undergrounded and those whose streets haven’t. There are 464 residences in UUD 1A (Stratford South) that are already being undergrounded. How fair would it to be to the rest of the city if we revoted on whether to finance undergrounding when a significant number of voters’ homes have already been undergrounded?
Please direct City Staff to move forward with the financing of UUD X1A and 1B.

Thank you,
Amy Cheshire
February 3, 2025 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: RED DOT re: Item # 8 CC Agenda for Feb. 3, 2025 From: Claire Mcgreal <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 12:03 PM
To: Sarah Krietor <[email protected]>
Subject: RED DOT re: Item # 8 CC Agenda for Feb. 3, 2025 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Please accept this Red Dot in support of the Staff Report’s recommendation for proceeding with financing for Undergrounding both Districts X1A and 1B.

The residents of X1A have done a good job advocating for financing that segment. Here, I wish to advocate specifically for 1B:
1B is actually a very small area, and should have been grouped with 1A, which is currently being undergrounded, but 1B is on a different electrical circuit. 1B contains most of our commercial district and a few residences.

Disclosure: We live in 1B, as our electrical wire comes to our house from a pole on Sea Orbit Lane, even though we live on Stratford Ct. (NE corner of Sea Orbit.) Many if not most of the 1B lots are in the commercial zone, as Del Mar Lane, from 11th to 15th, is primarily commercial.

Reasons to Finance the Undergrounding of District 1B with X1A:

1. Fire Safety

2. Public Safety in deterring spread of fires, and need for evacuating large numbers of residents and commercial patrons.

3. Will help with holding down Insurance Costs to businesses and residents.

4. Views and Aesthetics

5. Costs, as pointed out by the Staff Report.

Thank you,
Claire McGreal
February 3, 2025 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Bruce Watson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 12:38 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Undergrounding Program Financing Options
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City Council:

Our neighborhood self-financed our Nob Avenue undergrounding project many years ago. At that time, families paid on an "as willing" or "as able" basis. I don't feel further assessment is just or fair to these individuals. We are already contributing through the 1% Del Mar City tax. I propose the remaining neighborhoods consider this option. Even though the process was challenging we worked together for a positive outcome for everyone.

Respectfully,
Bruce & Sandra Watson
629 Nob Ave, Del Mar CA. 92014
February 3, 2025 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Terry Sinnott <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 1:20 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Ashley Jones
Subject: Fwd: Citywide Undergrounding Program Financial Analysis CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Members, Del Mar City Council.

I urge you not to pursue debt financing for your underground project. Just because you can use debt financing doesn't mean you should use debt financing.

Two observations:

1. The desire to move quickly on fire-proofing Crest Canyon is understandable. But there are cheaper, more realistic ways to prevent fires in Crest Canyon.

If residents of Crest are anxious to move forward, let's consider an assessment district.

2. As some others have pointed out, we really have not challenged the cost and schedule side of the proposed projects. We should.
l have attached a note that I sent to the Finance Committee chair back in October.

Hope that is helpful. I feel better getting this off my chest.

Terry
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Terry Sinnott <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 11:25 AM
Subject: Citywide Undergrounding Program Financial Analysis To: <[email protected]>
Cc: Laura DeMarco <[email protected]>
Laura,
You requested that I review the above for your October 22nd Finance Committee meeting.

My comments are based on my experience with the Oceanview Pines undergrounding project completed in 2006, and my career with SDG&E.

1. The design of the new underground system is like a Lego set. There are voltage requirements, but there are different ways to put the pieces together.

I would make sure that the proposed designs are critically reviewed and only convert the existing overhead capacity to underground. So you don't want the City paying for future capacity, only existing capacity. You want a Chevrolet not a Cadillac.

February 3, 2025 Item 08
2 2. The costs developed by SDG&E come from an elaborate computer program. Every effort should be made to get detailed cost breakdowns from the utility.

3. The "inflation" in costs are real. But I would be suspicious of that covering all cost increases. I would insist on having a project over-site person on City Staff dedicated to reducing costs on a daily basis. We had that person when we built the new City Hall, and it worked very well.

4. With inflation, time is of the essence. The faster you get things done the better. So my question is whether our schedule for underground projects is too slow. We have restraints based on the Measure Q funds. But if you could group some projects together, would you get better costs/bids from our contractors?

5. Our Oceanview Pines project was an assessment district. The property owners agreed to finance the project over 20 years on their property tax bills. We did not have Measure Q funds at that time. Could there be a strategy where neighborhoods who are anxious to move forward with undergrounding.... be allowed to form their own assessment districts. That would put pressure on City staff, but it might relieve the pressure on Measure Q funds, move undergrounding along faster, and ultimately be a better result. Those areas that don't form assessment districts would have to wait their turn using Measure Q funds.

Hope that helps. That's all I have.

Terry Sinnott
--
Terry Sinnott
858 449 0846
www.terrysinnott.com
--
Terry Sinnott
858 449 0846
www.terrysinnott.com
February 3, 2025 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: David Foggiano <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 2:29 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: City Council Meeting: Cost Transparency & Unit Cost of Materials request CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello City Clerk,
I am reaching out today as I cannot physically attend the City Council meeting today, but have a concern I would like to voice in advance of the meeting.

I see that the undergrounding project is going to be discussed, but not necessarily the reasons for the increased cost estimates nor the actual cost of materials. Are there reports or cost breakdown that outlines these increases and the reasoning?
I am requesting that this information become public as I have concerns over the rising cost as well as the city's need to borrow more funds to complete this project.

There seems to be a disconnect with informing Del Mar residents of the true input costs for this project and to see the cost estimates rise as they have without the data being released is troublesome and even more confusing.

Are there ways to reduce these costs like outsourcing or collecting additional bids? How can this project continue to grow in cost without transparency? Without said transparency I cannot imagine Del Mar residents getting behind these potentially crippling costs.

Please let me know if anything additional is needed from me.

Thank you for adding my request to the public portion of the meeting today.

Best,
--
David Foggiano
[email protected]
February 3, 2025 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Barbara Johansen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 2:45 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Under-grounding Costs
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Sent from my iPhone
Dear Del Mar City Council,
I think it is prudent and necessary to obtain an outside consultant to evaluate the escalated costs related to the original estimate several years ago for this project. The Del Mar Community needs transparency for these expenses especially now that our city does not have the funds and will need to borrow to cover these increased expenses. This is just the beginning for necessary borrowing related to under grounding throughout Del Mar! It is worth a pause and a new evaluative study.

Barbara Johansen
1 February 3, 2025 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Thomas M. O'Neil <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 3:48 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Undergrounding
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City Clerk,
I favor proceeding with the undergrounding program.

Thomas O’Neil
532 Serpentine Drive
Del Mar.

February 3, 2025 Item 08
Red Dot Letter – Item 9 - Reaffirm Final Investigative Report Concerning Councilmember Quirk Dear Mayor Gaasterland and Councilmembers Martinez, Quirk and Spelich:

I’m writing this letter in support of this agenda item that re-affirms the methodology and conclusions of the investigative report concerning Councilmember Dan Quirk. Since the report was released to the public, Dan has campaigned relentlessly by email to disparage his fellow council members and has frequently made false statements about the investigation that led to his censure as well as other issues affecting Del Mar. The tone and content of these emails is contributing to a negative atmosphere in our city. They need to stop.

After reading Dan’s emails I often feel dread because I know I may be called upon to rebut his false statements about the Undergrounding Program and the San Dieguito Drive Improvements Project – two projects which I have been involved in for years. But in order to get to the disputed facts in his messages, I have to first wade through a sea of derogatory adjectives describing his peers on the City Council as “illegitimate, dishonest, politically motivated, unethical, negligent” and so on.

These statements violate the Del Mar Code of Civil Discourse which requires that Council Members “show respect” and “avoid personalizing debate.”
On January 5th, I responded to Dan privately about his email regarding the San Dieguito Drive Project and I made a misstatement of fact. As soon as I realized my error, I sent him an email correcting my mistake and apologizing. His reply was, “Thank you for the apology.” But I have never seen Dan – not once - apologize for any of his misstatements of fact. He sends out emails on a variety of subjects from his censure to the UP to San Dieguito Drive and everyone in Del Mar can write Red Dot letters and make public comments correcting his misstatements but he appears to be unable to correct his errors or apologize for them. This is toxic for our public discourse.

A community leader should be very careful to speak accurately and respectfully and if they make a mistake in communicating they should correct the public record and apologize for their error. I would respectfully ask that the City Council insist that all council members observe the Del Mar Code of Civil Discourse in their communications and that misstatements of fact are addressed and corrected in public.

Sincerely,
Amy Cheshire
February 3, 2025 Item 09

Del Mar City CouncilFebruary 3, 2025

Del Mar City Council
February 3, 2025