Thank you for your consideration of Sandy Lane’s request. I remain available if you have any questions or would like additional information.
Regards,
Julie M. Hamilton
[email protected]
Attorney for
Del Mar Sandy Lane Association
September 22, 2026 Item 10
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA QUESTIONS
September 22, 2026
Item 8 – Tree Removal Permit Process-Council Policy Considerations
1. Have any coastal SoCal cities suspended their tree ordinances? Or would we be the first?
Response: Based on limited staff research, there are no other known Southern California cities that have suspended protected tree ordinances in preparation for El Niño events.
2. If we feel this is needed, why 30 days? Should we offer for a shorter time frame like 2-3 weeks? Or is it 30 days because it will realistically take that long to get the assessment of conditions done?
Response: To be clear, the Amnesty previously implemented by the City of Del Mar in the 1990’s is not being recommended by staff. This information is being provided for City Council awareness and discussion. Should the Council decide to implement a similar Amnesty, thirty (30) days is a reasonable amount of time for the homeowner to do what is needed to submit an application and for the City to review/process. The additional 30 days to implement tree removal also seems to provide reasonable time for a home owner to hire an arborist to complete the work. These timeframes were established based on the 1998 amnesty program and can be adjusted per Council determination.
3. Since the focus is on public safety, should Amnesty only apply to existing residents and not to pending DRB projects?
Response: If the Council elects to implement an Amnesty program, it can be structured to exclude tree removal on sites that have a pending Design Review Permit along with any other limitations the City Council decides are appropriate.
4. Why remove the requirement to replant a tree? Wouldn’t we be better off allowing them to plant after El Niño passes?
Response: The Council Policy consideration #1, as described in the agenda report, is whether to provide a more flexible approach to tree replacement and mitigation in areas where wildfire risk and defensible-space requirements make replacement with large trees less desirable and seeks Council direction whether to use existing authority in Del Mar Municipal Code §23.50.090 to develop a fire-safe replacement planting policy. This would include working with the Fire Marshal to identify appropriate lower-growing and more fire-resistant trees; establish when payment into the Tree Mitigation Fund is appropriate, and set criteria for evaluating replacement based on site-specific fire, topographic, existing structures, and landscape conditions.
5. What is the difference between the City’s existing NOI process and the Amnesty process previously undertaken by the City in the 1990’s? September 22, 2026 Item 8 and Item 9
Response: The distinguishing factor between the existing City NOI process and the previously implemented Amnesty process, is the eligibility requirements that Amnesty applicants were required to meet were less stringent.
6. Is there any way for the City to evaluate tree canopy coverage? Does the city do any regular survey of the number of Torrey Pines trees in the City and/or the overall canopy coverage provided by these trees and all trees/greenery overall? Response: The City does not have an inventory of trees located on private property, but Public Works does maintain an inventory of trees on public property located within the City. As a routine practice, the City does not conduct Lidar studies or prepare tree canopy maps, but that is something the Council could consider when the Tree Ordinance is updated in 2027. It is staff’s understanding that a Lidar survey that included the City of Del Mar was previously completed by the City of San Diego approximately a decade ago or longer.
Item 9- Consideration of a City Council Measure Q Financing Policy
1. For the June 11 UPAC/Finance committee meeting where this was first discussed, who initially proposed 50% as the maximum of annual debt service payments? Response: As described in the agenda report, the draft financing guidelines were developed and proposed by the UPAC Financing Subcommittee, in conjunction with staff.
2. Why was 50% chosen as the maximum? Was there any analysis that looked at other figures such as 60% or 70%?
Response: The 50% threshold is being recommended by UPAC and the Finance Committee with the objective of avoiding fully leveraging the City’s Measure Q revenue stream and maintaining adequate debt capacity. Per Council direction to borrow the least amount for the shortest term possible, the 50% threshold provided for a balanced approach to pay-as-you-go and utilize debt instruments to fund Measure Q projects as approved by the Council.
3. Assuming $4 million in annual Measure Q revenue, was there any analysis on what the 50% maximum translates to in terms of total dollars? Can city staff provide a few different numbers based on various borrowing amounts and interest rates? For example, one debt service calculator indicates borrowing $38 million at 3.25% over 30 years would require an annual payment of about $2 million.
Response: As part of the cash flow update to be completed by staff, different scenarios will be evaluated based on the financing principles contained in the Measure Q Financing Policy, or as otherwise may be directed by the City Council. The cash flow model has been developed to account for a pay-as-you-go approach and identify opportunities to accommodate any debt issuance that complies with the Council’s borrowing direction. Large scale borrowing scenarios were not considered as they are inconsistent with prior Council direction related to borrowing.
September 22, 2026 Item 8 and Item 9
4. What were the borrowing terms for the City Hall debt? Response: The City’s most recent borrowing with IBank to fund UUD X1A and 1B was a loan for $5.0 million, for a 10-year financing term, and an all-in interest rate of 3.18% (inclusive of 0.15% annual servicing fee). Annual debt service payments over the financing term average roughly $584K.
5. Is collateral such as Powerhouse Park required for borrowing, or does having collateral just help to lower the interest rate?
Response: The California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank) requires collateral in the form of a lease-leaseback financing structure to secure loans when repayment comes from the City’s General Fund (of which Measure Q is part of). If the City were to issue General Obligation Bonds, collateral would not be required as the financing would be secured by the City’s full faith, credit, and taxing power (General Fund).
6. Is Powerhouse Park the only collateral the City can use for collateral purposes in its borrowing? Is there other collateral that can be used? Response: The Powerhouse Community Center, not the Park, has been identified as the preferred collateral for financing purposes based on its value and the City’s limited larger value assets that can be used for this purpose. The Town Hall currently serves as collateral for the IBank loan used for construction of the Civic Center complex, so there isn’t a lot of debt capacity there.
7. What is the value of Powerhouse Park and what is the available borrowing capacity against it?
Response: In the IBank staff report to their Board of Directors for Del Mar’s UUD X1A and 1B loan totaling $5 million, they estimated the value of the Powerhouse Community Center at roughly $20 million. Absent a formal appraisal of the asset, the current remaining capacity as collateral is approximately $15 million.
8. Based on my own rough modeling, District 2 can be completed in 2029 or 2030, and because of strong Measure Q generation over the next 4 years, there will be minimal net debt by the end of 2030. Does staff agree?
Response: Based on the most recent cash flow provided to the City Council on March 3, 2026, the earliest anticipated start of construction for District 2 is FY 2030. This may be adjusted based on the updated cash flow analysis to be prepared by staff following Council adoption of financing principles to guide this work.
9. How much potential borrowing would it require in 2031 to complete District 3 construction in 2031? If the cost in 2026 dollars for District 3 is $22.5 million, would the inflation-adjusted cost in 2031 be around $26 million? One loan calculator shows that borrowing $26 million at 3.25% would lead to an annual debt burden payment of 35%, which is well below the 50% proposed maximum. Given the long lead times on design with SDG&E of 3-4 years, should City staff be looking to initiate the process to start design work on the large District 3 in early 2027? Even if we add another $6 million for Shores Park for a total of $32 million, the debt September 22, 2026 Item 8 and Item 9
service payment is still only about $1.7 million or 42% of annual measure Q. My reading of the policy guideline goal is “to look for opportunities to accelerate completion of Measure Q projects”.
Response: Staff is not able to answer specific financing scenario questions at this time.
The most recent cash flows for a pay-as-you-go scenario following financing for X1A and 1B were presented on March 3, 2026. Cash flows, including identifying potential financing opportunities, will be updated following approval of a Measure Q Financing Policy, and any related direction provided by the City Council.
10. According to the March 3, 2026, cash flows provided by staff, the aggregate cost for Districts 3, 4, and 5 is about $43 million. Was there any discussion by the Finance/Undergrounding committee on the potential benefit of completing all of undergrounding by 2033 (District 3 in 2031, District 4 in 2032, District 5 in 2034) even if it meant a scenario of having an annual Measure Q debt burden payment of 65% or 70%? Was there any discussion or analysis that in such a scenario net debt would rapidly decline because of the excess Measure Q cash flows and no future project expenditures?
Response: No, the discussion focused on establishing the Measure Q Financing Guidelines to help guide the cash flow analysis to be undertaken by staff rather than evaluating specific cash flow scenarios. Evaluating different scenarios to identify financing opportunities will be part of the work to be undertaken by staff in the coming months consistent with Council direction.
11. Do we have a final actual Measure Q total collection for Fiscal Year 2025-26? Response: The FY 2027 Budget Update approved by Council included an FY 2025-2026 budget increase in Measure Q revenue from $3.68 million to $3.84 million. These budget figures include anticipated interest earnings. Actual FY 2026 revenues are currently $3.87 million including interest, of which $3.65 million is district tax revenue.
September 22, 2026 Item 8 and Item 9