Del Mar City Council
September 22, 2026

Table of Contents
9-22-2026 Regular Meeting Agenda
Item 1 - Proclamation - Fire Prevention Month
Item 2 - Minutes
Item 3 - 9-22-26 List of Demands Packet
Item 5 - Professional Services Agreement with MIG
Item 6 - Initial Consideration of EP26-050
Item 7 - Shores Park Master Plan Recommended Concept Design Item 8 - TRP Discussion
Item 9 - MQ Financing Policy
Item 10 - Emergency Declaration Sediment
2 8
9 14
30 44
130
144
165
172
Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda
City of Del Mar, Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California 92014
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us Civility Works: The Del Mar Code of Civil Discourse: Together we will promote inclusion; listen to understand; show respect; be clear and fair; and focus on the issue.

Regular Meeting
Tuesday, September 22, 2026 at 4:30 PM
Public Participation: Members of the public may participate in City Council meetings in person, remotely, or by submitting written comments (“Red Dots”). Public comments are generally limited to three minutes per speaker, at the Mayor’s discretion. Comments on items not on the agenda may be made during Public Oral
Communications. Agenda items may be taken out of order at the Mayor’s discretion. Electronic presentations must be submitted before 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting; presentations cannot be loaded during the meeting.

In-Person Participation: Please submit a completed speaker slip, including the agenda item number, to the City Clerk before the item is announced. Speaker slips are available near the entrance of Town Hall. When called to speak, please approach the podium and state your name for the record.

Remote Participation: Join the Zoom Webinar using the link or dial-in information below: Zoom Link:
https://tinyurl.com/zoomdelmar; Phone: (669) 900-6833;
Meeting ID: 879 0650 1544.

To indicate you wish to speak use the “Raise Hand” feature or dial *9 by phone when the agenda item is announced, or at the start of the meeting for non-agenda public comment. Upon joining the meeting, all attendees will automatically be muted with video feed disabled. When called to speak, please unmute yourself using the “Unmute” button or by pressing *6 on your phone, and state your name and affiliation (if applicable). Remote speakers are responsible for verifying their audio and video equipment is operational prior to the meeting.

Written Comments: Written Comments (“Red Dots”) for items on the agenda should be emailed to [email protected] by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. The email subject line should clearly identify the agenda item being addressed.

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

Assistance for Persons with Disabilities: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Administrative Services Department at 1050 Camino del Mar or by calling (858) 755-9313.

Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Tracy Martinez
Mayor
John W. Spelich
Deputy Mayor
Terry Gaasterland
Council Member
Dan Quirk
Council Member
Ashley Jones
City Manager
Christina M. Cameron
City Attorney
Sarah Krietor
Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting September 22, 2026 Agenda Page 2
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
II. CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Each person wishing to speak in-person before the City Council on any matter not on the agenda shall submit a “Speaker Slip” to the City Clerk when Public Oral Communication is announced. Each person wishing to speak remotely before the City Council on any matter not on the agenda shall raise their hand by using the “Raise Hand” feature or dialing *9 on their phone when Public Oral Communication is announced. When the speaker’s name is called, the speaker should unmute and state, in an audible tone of voice, their name and affiliation (if applicable).

Each speaker will have up to three (3) minutes to speak at the discretion of the Mayor and may be asked clarifying questions. Information received during Public Oral Communication may be received, placed on a future agenda, or referred to the City Manager by the City Council. State law generally precludes the City Council from discussing or acting upon any topic presented during oral communications that is not described on the posted agenda.

Note: there is a time limit of 30 minutes for this section of public communications and each speaker will be heard in the order of the submission of their speaker slip. Speakers who have turned in a speaker slip prior to the time oral communications was called on the agenda, but were not heard during the initial time period shall be called to speak at the end of the agenda.

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

1. Proclamation Celebrating Fire Prevention Month- October 2026 Recommended Action: Mayor Martinez will present a proclamation to Fire Marshal Medi Maldonado.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1101-8
VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the City Council or the public so requests, in which event, the item will be pulled from the Consent Calendar and considered separately after the motion to approve the Consent Calendar. If you wish to remove an item from the Consent Calendar, please submit a “Speaker Slip” to the City Clerk.

Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting September 22, 2026 Agenda Page 3
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us

2. Approval of Minutes: September 8, 2026 Regular Meeting Recommended Action: Approve Minutes.

Reference: Clerk’s Minutes Book

3. Ratification of List of Demands dated September 22, 2026 Recommended Action: Ratify the List of Demands.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 201-3

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

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-4

5. Approval of Professional Services Agreement with Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG) for Environmental and Planning Services Recommended Action: Consistent with City Council direction provided on May 19, 2026, staff recommends the City Council: 1) Approve a Professional Services Agreement with MIG (Attachment A), in an amount not to exceed $169,295 to prepare and process California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation and planning-level amendments to the City of Del Mar (City) Community Plan (General Plan), Zoning Code, and Local Coastal Program (LCP), and Rezone

11.7 acres on the North Bluff to increase the residential density to allow multiple dwelling unit development; 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement and any term extension amendments provided for in the Agreement, contingent upon satisfactory performance by the consultant; and 3) Allocate $19,295 from the General Fund to Special Projects Fund 49.8000.8042, which is needed to fully fund this work above the $150,000 already included in the approved FY 2026-27 Budget.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 406-1
IX. COUNCIL MEETING RECESS
X. CITY COUNCIL OTHER BUSINESS

6. Initial Consideration of an Appeal of Encroachment Permit (EP) 26-050 EP Appellant: Jean Jacques Abitbol, MD c/o Jon Corn
Appellant’s Address: 1047 Stratford Ct. (APN: 300-093-10-00) Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the approval of Encroachment Permit EP26-050 (Attachment A) and decline to set the appeal for a de novo hearing.

Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting September 22, 2026 Agenda Page 4
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us Reference: Clerk’s File No. 802-1

7. Overview of Shores Park Master Planning Process and Recommended Concept Design for the Shores Park Master Plan
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council receive an update on the Shores Park master planning process, consider the recommended concept design (Attachment A) recommended to the City Council by the Shores Park Master Plan Ad-hoc Advisory Committee, and provide direction on any design refinements to be incorporated into the final Master Plan.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 307-8

8. Tree Removal Permit Process – Council Policy Considerations Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive an informative presentation and provide direction regarding the City's existing tree removal and replacement process outlined in Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 23.50 (Tree Ordinance); 2) Provide direction regarding tree replacement mitigation for parcels located in the High and Very High Fire Severity Zones and whether the Notice of Intent application fee should be waived for trees that have fallen or that present an imminent public safety threat; and 3) In preparation for the upcoming El Nino storms, consider an emergency 30-day amnesty as an administrative extension to the Tree Ordinance, similar to the March 16, 1998, City Council action that allowed the removal of protected trees, without tree replanting requirements through a free Notice of Intent application process.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 301-15,1403-7

9. Consideration of a City Council Measure Q Financing Policy Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council review and adopt the Resolution (Attachment A) approving the proposed Measure Q Financing Policy (Exhibit A to Attachment A) as jointly recommended by the Undergrounding Program Advisory Committee (UPAC) and Finance Committee.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 201-8

10. Declaration of a Local Emergency Due to High Volume of Sedimentation in the San Dieguito Lagoon
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council:
1) Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) declaring a local emergency due to a high volume of sedimentation in the San Dieguito Lagoon;
2) Direct the City Manager to continue coordinating with, and to formally request emergency action from, Southern California Edison, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the California Coastal Commission, and other responsible Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting September 22, 2026 Agenda Page 5
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us agencies to maintain the San Dieguito Lagoon inlet in advance of the 2026- 2027 winter storm season; and
3) Direct the City Manager to request that the United States Army Corps of Engineers amend the City’s SCOUP permit, and Southern California Edison’s related permit, to authorize dredging of up to 50,000 cubic yards per dredge event, consistent with the volume approved by every other resource agency.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1405-1
XI. REGIONAL ORGANIZATION REPORTS
A Councilmember assigned as a liaison to a regional organization may make a written or oral report. State law precludes the Council from commenting on, discussing, or acting on a report unless the item of business within the report is described in the agenda.

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

A. Civic Center Operations Guide Subcommittee (Spelich/Gaasterland) B. Del Mar Community Connections (Martinez/Spelich)
C. Del Mar Village Association (Gaasterland/Martinez)
D. Finance Committee (Spelich)
E. Housing Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
F. Human Resources Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
G. Legislative Subcommittee (Martinez/Spelich)
H. Measure Q Citizen Oversight Committee (Quirk/Gaasterland) I. Parks and Recreation Committee (Martinez/Quirk)
J. Del Mar Railroad Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Martinez) K. Lagoon Committee (Spelich)
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting September 22, 2026 Agenda Page 6
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us L. Planning Process Subcommittee (Includes Sea-Level Rise Adaptation Plan Implementation (Gaasterland/Spelich)
M. Shores Park Master Plan Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee (Gaasterland/Spelich) N. Sustainability Advisory Committee (Martinez/Gaasterland) O. Traffic and Parking Advisory Committee (Quirk/Spelich) P. Undergrounding Program Advisory Committee (Spelich)
Q. Other Committee-Subcommittee Reports
XIII. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS
The following topics/items are tentatively planned for upcoming agendas. The title, wording, and planned date for these items are subject to change. Final agendas are posted at City Hall 72 hours in advance of the meetings and are also posted on our web site with the accompanying staff report. Please watch our web site:
www.delmar.ca.us for City Council Agendas.

October 6, 2026
Proclamation Honoring the Del Mar Library’s 30th Anniversary and Thanking Former Del Mar Librarian Polly Cipparrone
Consider Speed Limit adjustments
Parking Changes on Stratford Court and Ocean Avenue
XIV. CERTIFICATION
I, Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk for the City of Del Mar, hereby certify that a copy of this agenda was posted at City Hall on the 16th day of September, 2026 at approximately 4:45 p.m.
___________________________________________ 9/16/2026
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/ Date
City Clerk
1 September 22, 2026 Item 1

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 8, 2026
City of Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar California 92014
The minutes set forth the actions taken by the City Council on the matters stated. Audio/video recordings of the City Council proceedings are retained for a period of ten years, in accordance with the City's Records Retention Schedule. Audio/video recordings, as well as written materials presented to the City Council, including Red Dots (materials provided to the City Council after the agenda has published), are available on the City’s website at www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter or by contacting the Administrative Services Department at (858) 755-9313.

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

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Tracy Martinez; Deputy Mayor John Spelich; Councilmembers Terry Gaasterland and Dan Quirk (arrived at 5:47 p.m.)

CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT
None.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Martinez led the Pledge of Allegiance.

PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.

CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Martinez announced the recent passing of community member Louise Keeling, expressed condolences to the Keeling family, and commented on Louise’s impact and contributions to the Del Mar community.

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Ashley Jones reported on the San Diego Association of Governments’ (SANDAG) completion of the Del Mar Bluff 5 Stabilization project and the one-year plant establishment period running through roughly August 2027, and introduced Kevin Parker, the City’s new Principal Planner over current planning, and recently hired Fire Marshal Medi Maldonado.

PRESENTATIONS
ITEM 1: PROCLAMATION HONORING MATT BATOR’S RETIREMENT AND 29 YEARS OF CITY (CLERK’S FILE NO. 1201-5)
Mayor Martinez read the proclamation honoring Matt Bator on his retirement and for his service to the Del Mar Community. Matt Bator provided comments, thanked the City Council for the proclamation, and expressed his gratitude to current and past City staff. 1 September 22, 2026 Item 2
City Council Regular Minutes
September 8, 2026

Mayor Martinez opened the item to public comment and the following people spoke:
1) Dwight Worden
2) Amy Cheshire read comments prepared by Shirli Weiss
3) Suren Dutia
Mayor Martinez closed the item to public comment.

Council discussion focused on appreciation to Mr. Bator for his service to the Del Mar community.

ITEM 2: DEL MAR FIRE DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW & RESPONSE TIME PERFORMANCE REVIEW (CLERK’S FILE NO. 1101-8)
A presentation was provided by Fire Chief Bret Davidson.

Mayor Martinez opened the item to public comment and the following people spoke:
1) Carol Kerridge
2) Jas Grewal
3) Betty Wheeler provided comments on behalf Mai-Lon (Alberta) Gittelsohn 4) Philip Posner
Mayor Martinez closed the item to public comment.

Council questions and discussion focused on mitigation of fire risk in Crest Canyon; whether brush clearing has occurred in Crest Canyon by the City of San Diego and in what areas; approach for fuel reduction; whether irrigation in Crest Canyon could reduce fire risk in the area; whether use of thermal imagining or cameras would be helpful for managing fire risk in Crest Canyon; coordination between the Fire Department and San Diego Gas & Electric regarding fire risk; consideration related to balancing a robust tree canopy with Zone 0 regulations; whether the Fire Department has considered partnership with Del Mar Community Connections (DMCC) regarding fire preparedness outreach; level of care provided by Del Mar Firefighter/Paramedics; and considerations related to the location of the Del Mar Fire Station.

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

IT WAS MOVED BY DEPUTY MAYOR SPELICH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GAASTERLAND TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 3 THROUGH 5, 7 THROUGH 11. (VOTE 4-0)
Ayes: Mayor Martinez; Deputy Mayor Spelich; Councilmember Gaasterland; Noes: 0; Recuse: 0;

Absent: Councilmember Quirk; Abstain: 0.

ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: AUGUST 25, 2026, REGULAR AND SPECIAL MEETING (CLERK’S MINUTES BOOK)
Council approved the minutes, on consent.

ITEM 4: RATIFICATION OF LIST OF DEMANDS, DATED SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 (CLERK’S FILE NO. 201-3)
Council approved the list of demands, on consent.
2 September 22, 2026 Item 2
City Council Regular Minutes
September 8, 2026

ITEM 5: WAIVER OF READING OF ORDINANCES ON AGENDA (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-4) Council waived the reading of ordinances, on consent.

ITEM 6: SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS 7F, 4A, AND 4B RELATED TO REASONABLE

ACCOMMODATIONS AND SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING REGULATIONS, INCLUDING

RESIDENTIAL CARE, SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, LOW

BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTERS, EMERGENCY SHELTERS, AND ADULT AND CHILD DAY CARE SERVICES CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW (CLERK’S FILE NO. 304-7,401-4)
Mayor Martinez introduced the item.

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER GAASTERLAND AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER QUIRK TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 1029, “AN ORDINANCE OF THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE DEL MAR

MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPEALING EXISTING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS REGULATIONS FROM SECTION 30.86.230 IN CHAPTER 30.86 (SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS) AND SECTION 23.08.035 IN CHAPTER 23.08 (DESIGN REVIEW); AND CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 30.94 (REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS) TO

ESTABLISH NEW REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS REGULATIONS IN THE CITY

OF DEL MAR THAT ADDRESS FAIR HOUSING AND FURTHER ACCOMMODATE PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES,” AND ORDINANCE 1030, “AN ORDINANCE OF THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE DEL MAR MUNICIPAL CODE (DMMC) CHAPTER 30.04 (DEFINITIONS), CHAPTER 30.10 (VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R1-40), CHAPTER 30.11 (MODIFIED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R1-14), CHAPTER 30.12 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R1-10), CHAPTER 30.13 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BEACH R1-10B), CHAPTER 30.14 (MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R1-5), CHAPTER 30.15 (MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BEACH R1-5B), CHAPTER 30.16 (MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-MIXED RESIDENTIAL RM-EAST), CHAPTER 30.17 (MEDIUM DENSITY MIXED RESIDENTIAL RM-WEST), CHAPTER 30.18 MEDIUM DENSITY MIXED RESIDENTIAL RM-CENTRAL), CHAPTER 30.19 (MEDIUM DENSITY MIXED RESIDENTIAL RM-SOUTH), CHAPTER 30.20 (HIGH DENSITY MIXED RESIDENTIAL R2), CHAPTER 30.21 (RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL ZONE RC), CHAPTER 30.22 (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL ZONE) AND CHAPTER 30.24 (NORTH COMMERCIAL ZONE), AND CHAPTER 30.25 (PROFESSIONAL COMMERCIAL ZONE), AND SECTION 30.75.080 (COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ISSUANCE); AND CREATING A NEW DMMC SECTION 30.86.205 (SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING) AND CHAPTER 30.95 (HOUSING FOR SPECIAL NEEDS

POPULATIONS) AS NECESSARY TO HARMONIZE THE DEL MAR MUNICIPAL CODE

AND CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM WITH FAIR HOUSING STATE LAWS.” (VOTE 3-0-1 WITH DEPUTY MAYOR SPELICH RECUSED)
Ayes: Mayor Martinez; Councilmember Gaasterland; Noes: 0; Recuse: Deputy Mayor Spelich; Absent: Councilmember Quirk; Abstain: 0.
3 September 22, 2026 Item 2
City Council Regular Minutes
September 8, 2026

ITEM 7: TASK ORDER AMENDMENT WITH NOVA SERVICES, INC. FOR THE JIMMY DURANTE BOULEVARD BLUFF STABILIZATION PROJECT (CLERK’S FILE NO. 406- 1)
Council approved a $25,343 Task Order Amendment with NOVA Services, Inc. for extended geotechnical services and laboratory testing; authorized the City Manager to execute the Task Order Amendment and any subsequent amendments within the project contingency necessary to complete the work; approved a $20,000 increase to the project contingency; and amended the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Operating and Capital Budget as described in the Fiscal Impact section below, on consent.

ITEM 8: TASK ORDER AMENDMENT WITH UTILITY SPECIALISTS SOUTHWEST, INC. FOR STRATFORD COURT NORTH (1B) UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT (CLERK’S FILE NO. 406-1)
Council approved a $60,200 Task Order Amendment with Utility Specialists Southwest, Inc. for extended design services; approved a $50,000 contingency; and authorized the City Manager to execute the Task Order Amendment and any subsequent amendments within the contingency necessary to complete the work, on consent.

ITEM 9: BIENNIAL REVIEW AND UPDATE OF THE DEL MAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE (CLERK’S FILE NO. 404-6)
Council received this report and adopted Resolution 2026-59 “A RESOLUTION OF THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE CITY OF DEL MAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE,” incorporating revisions to the Del Mar Conflict of Interest Code to reflect changes in staff positions, on consent.

ITEM 10: LAGOON COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-5) Council appointed Karen Lare as a voting member to the Lagoon Committee to serve a full three-year term effective November 1, 2026, and ending on November 30, 2029, on consent.

PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM 11: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE DATE BY WHICH PROPERTIES MUST BE

READY TO RECEIVE UNDERGROUND SERVICE IN THE UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT X1A (CREST CANYON) – WORK ZONE 3 (CLERK’S FILE NO.) Council adopted Resolution 2026-60, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE DATE BY WHICH PROPERTIES

MUST BE READY TO RECEIVE UNDERGROUND SERVICE IN THE UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT X1A (CREST CANYON) – WORK ZONE 3,” on consent.

COUNCIL MEETING RECESS:

The City Council took a meeting recess from approximately 6:26 p.m. to 6:40 p.m.

CITY COUNCIL OTHER BUSINESS
4 September 22, 2026 Item 2
City Council Regular Minutes
September 8, 2026

ITEM 12: UPDATE ON CITYWIDE PREPARATIONS FOR THE 2026-2027 RAINY SEASON AND FORECASTED EL NIÑO CONDITIONS (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-1)
A presentation was provided by Assistant City Manager Clem Brown. City Manager Jones provided comments on the City’s increased efforts to manage the El Nino storm conditions.

Mayor Martinez opened public comment and Rick Kuhle with a donation of time from Amy Cheshire spoke.

Council questions and discussion focused on how the City communicates with other coastal cities regarding their preparedness efforts; whether the City can engage California Edison to move up the date for dredging; location of the berms; and whether the City could consideration an emergency declaration resolution related to the Army Corp of Engineers delay in implementing mitigation efforts associated with sedimentation in the San Dieguito Lagoon.

Council consensus was for staff to return to Council on September 22, 2026, with an emergency declaration resolution related to the high volume of sand accumulation in the San Dieguito Lagoon resulting from the 2024 United States Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) sand nourishment project in the cities of Solana Beach and Encinitas, that has gone unaddressed by USACE despite the City of Del Mar raising significant concerns for at least the last 18 months.

ITEM 13: CELEBRATION OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE DEL MAR COMMUNITY PLAN (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-1)
An introduction to the item was provided by Mayor Martinez. Community Plan drafters and participants spoke including Tom Shephard, Sage Sweetwood, Nancy Hoover and John Weare. Mayor Martinez presented the proclamation honoring the 50th Anniversary of the Del Mar Community Plan.

Mayor Martinez opened the item to public comment and the following people spoke:
1) Drew Keeling
2) Dwight Worden with one donation of time from Betty Wheeler 3) Bruce Bekkar
4) Roger Reynolds
5) Chana Mannen
Mayor Martinez closed the item to public comment.

Council discussion focused on the importance and lasting impact of the Del Mar Community Plan and appreciation to the residents and community members who volunteered their time to participate in the development of the Community Plan.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATION AND COUNCIL COMMITTEES/SUBCOMMITTEES/COMMUNITY

ORGANIZATION REPORTS
None.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Martinez adjourned the meeting at 7:34 p.m.
________________________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/
City Clerk
5 September 22, 2026 Item 2

Vendor Payment Checks 223,793.89 $
Voids $0.00
Electronic Fund Transfers (EFT) 237,989.99
Electronic Wires 137,943.33
Total 599,727.21 $
Approved by: Approved by:

Marco Camacho Tracy Martinez
Finance Director/Treasurer Mayor
Date: Date:

Attachments: Check Registers

LIST OF DEMANDS

CITY OF DEL MAR
for
City Council Meeting
September 22, 2026
9/15/26
1 September 22, 2026 Item 3
09/08/2026
Check List
City of Del Mar
1 4:43:36PM
apChkLst Final Page:

Bank : eusbnk EFT GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK
Check # Date Vendor Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 8082 9/9/2026 lif06 GEN DIGITAL INC. 10010716082 8/15/2026 VOL LIFE LOCK 93.43 93.43 Voucher: 8082
8083 9/9/2026 leg04 LEGALACCESSPLANS USA, CREDIT TO 1000178 09082026 9/8/2026 VOL LEGAL EASE AUG 161.64 161.64 Voucher: 8083
Sub total for EFT GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK: 255.07
Page: 1
2 September 22, 2026 Item 3
09/08/2026
Check List
City of Del Mar
2 4:43:36PM
apChkLst Final Page:
2 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 255.07 Page: 2
3 September 22, 2026 Item 3
09/08/2026
Check List
City of Del Mar
1 1:48:38PM
apChkLst Final Page:

Bank : gusbnk GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK
Check # Date Vendor Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 4271 9/4/2026 irs01 IRS, UNITED STATES TREASURY Ben186475 9/4/2026 FEDERAL TAX: PAYMENT 53,269.82 53,269.82 Voucher: 4271
4272 9/4/2026 per01 PERS Ben186477 9/4/2026 PERS CONTRIBUTIONS: PAYMENT 64,336.27 64,336.27 Voucher: 4272
4273 9/4/2026 per02 PERS 457 Ben186479 9/4/2026 CALPERS 457 DEFERRED COMP: PAYMENT 4,244.33 4,244.33 Voucher: 4273
4274 9/4/2026 edd01 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT Ben186481 9/4/2026 STATE TAX: PAYMENT 15,857.53 15,857.53 Voucher: 4274
4275 9/4/2026 riv01 CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY DCSS Ben186483 9/4/2026 RIVERSIDE CNTY CHILD SUPPORT: PAYMENT 235.38 235.38 Voucher: 4275
Sub total for GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK: 137,943.33
Page: 1
4 September 22, 2026 Item 3
09/08/2026
Check List
City of Del Mar
2 1:48:38PM
apChkLst Final Page:

Bank : eusbnk EFT GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK
Check # Date Vendor Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 8076 9/4/2026 mis07 107413 STATE ST BANK & TRUST, MS 107413 PLAN 401A Ben186471 9/4/2026 401A PLAN: PAYMENT 571.81 571.81 Voucher: 8076
8077 9/4/2026 mis08 303845 STATE ST BANK & TRUST, MS 457 PLAN OBI 303845 Ben186465 9/4/2026 MISSION SQUARE 457B: PAYMENT 9,563.16 9,563.16 Voucher: 8077
8078 9/4/2026 mis09 803808 STATE ST BANK & TRUST, MS RHS PLAN OBI 803808 Ben186473 9/4/2026 RETIREMENT HEALTH SAVINGS 3%: PAYMENT 774.98 774.98 Voucher: 8078
8079 9/4/2026 uni21 DEL MAR CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOC. Ben186467 9/4/2026 DMCEA DUES: PAYMENT 273.00 273.00 Voucher: 8079
8080 9/4/2026 nat15 NATIONAL BENEFIT SERVICES, LLC, FLEXIBLE BENEFITS DEPT Ben186463 9/4/2026 SEC. 125 FLEXIBLE SAVINGS ACCT: PAYMENT 2,649.89 2,649.89 Voucher: 8080
8081 9/4/2026 par21 U.S. BANK PARS FFC 6746022400, CITYDELMAR ATTN B BERGMAN Ben186469 9/4/2026 PUBLIC AGENCY RETIREMENT SRVCS: PAYMENT 4,735.44 4,735.44 Voucher: 8081
Sub total for EFT GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK: 18,568.28
Page: 2
5 September 22, 2026 Item 3
09/08/2026
Check List
City of Del Mar
3 1:48:38PM
apChkLst Final Page:
11 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 156,511.61 Page: 3
6 September 22, 2026 Item 3
09/09/2026
Check List
City of Del Mar
1 1:55:35PM
apChkLst Final Page:

Bank : eusbnk EFT GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK
Check # Date Vendor Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 8084 9/4/2026 kay01 ADAM KAYE CDMINVOICEAUG2026 8/31/2026 COMM SRVCS AUG 5,250.00 5,250.00 Voucher: 8084
8085 9/4/2026 azt02 AZTEC LANDSCAPING INC, DBA AZTEC JANITORIAL J2400 7/31/2026 JANITORIAL SRVCS CH 2,564.00 Voucher: 8085 J2399 7/31/2026 JANITORIAL SRVCS PW 501.00 3,065.00 8086 9/4/2026 bak09 BAKER ELECTRIC 7926 8/17/2026 SOLAR MAINT CH 3,077.20 3,077.20 Voucher: 8086
8087 9/4/2026 cha71 CHARTER COMM HOLDINGS LLC, CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 189123701 8/14/2026 FIBER CONNECTION PW AUG 572.67 Voucher: 8087 189123101 8/14/2026 LIFEGUARD FIBER AUG 494.57 189125301 8/14/2026 CH FIBER TO LFGRDS AUG 494.57
189123401 8/14/2026 CABLE/INTERNET PW AUG 240.33
8448 41 006 01714638/13/2026 PUBLIC WIFI PHCC AUG 155.44 189123001 8/14/2026 LFGD CABLE/INTERNET AUG 110.00 2,067.58 8088 9/4/2026 coa21 COAST NEWS GROUP 00162348 8/14/2026 AD - PUBLIC HEARING V25-002 201.50 Voucher: 8088 00162543 8/28/2026 AD - PUBLIC HEARING UG DIST X1A 189.88 00162347 8/14/2026 AD - PUBLIC HEARING LOT ADJUSTMENT 178.25 00162346 8/14/2026 AD - PUBLIC HEARING EP26-053 174.38 744.01 8089 9/4/2026 del02 DEL MAR BLUE PRINT CO, INC649193 8/26/2026 PRINTING SRVCS 5.44 5.44 Voucher: 8089
8090 9/4/2026 del14 DEL MAR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION 3 9/2/2026 DMVA AGRMNT JUL 48,626.34 48,626.34 Voucher: 8090
8091 9/4/2026 dix01 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO 06-0654518 8/20/2026 OPERATING SUPP CS 330.40 Voucher: 8091 06-0654865 8/25/2026 OPERATING SUPP PW 98.59 06-0654354 8/19/2026 OPERATING SUPP PW 54.79
06-0654615 8/21/2026 OPERATING SUPP PW 29.45
06-0654806 8/24/2026 OPERATING SUPP PW 26.07
06-0654795 8/24/2026 OPERATING SUPP PW 19.53 558.83
8092 9/4/2026 duk01 DUDEK 202607959 8/18/2026 JDB PROJ JUL 1,155.00 1,155.00 Voucher: 8092
8093 9/4/2026 fer07 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES LLC, DBA FERGUSON WATERWORKS 0913898-1 8/21/2026 WATER METER PARTS 675.75 Voucher: 8093 0913898 8/19/2026 WATER METER PARTS 245.97 0914279 8/24/2026 WATER METER PARTS 75.36 997.08
8094 9/4/2026 hel04 HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING 135306 8/1/2026 PROF SRVCS 7,100.73 7,100.73 Voucher: 8094
Page: 1
7 September 22, 2026 Item 3
09/09/2026
Check List
City of Del Mar
2 1:55:35PM
apChkLst Final Page:

Bank : eusbnk EFT GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 8095 9/4/2026 man12 MANERI TRAFFIC CONTROL INC, DBA MTC 26208 8/21/2026 OPERATING SUPP PW 1,218.00 1,218.00 Voucher: 8095
8096 9/4/2026 mic11 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL 1297331 8/14/2026 CITY ENGR SRVCS JUL 8,513.67 8,513.67 Voucher: 8096
8097 9/4/2026 opt03 OPTIMIZED INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC 1769 8/13/2026 INVSTMNT SRVCS JUL 2,678.86 2,678.86 Voucher: 8097
8098 9/4/2026 pac28 PACIFIC MOBILE STRUCTURES INC INV-00555060 9/1/2026 MOBILE OFFICE PW SEP 299.07 299.07 Voucher: 8098
8099 9/4/2026 pho01 PHOENIX GROUP INFO SYSTEMS 072026036 8/19/2026 CITE SRVCS - JUL 24,708.07 24,708.07 Voucher: 8099
8100 9/4/2026 pru01 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY132422339 8/21/2026 UNIFORMS PW - 9/4 77.72 Voucher: 8100 132422337 8/21/2026 MATS PW - 9/4 20.84
132418295 8/7/2026 MATS PW - 9/4 20.84
132422338 8/21/2026 TOWELS PW - 9/4 4.41
132418296 8/7/2026 TOWELS PW - 9/4 4.41 128.22
8101 9/4/2026 san107 SAN DIEGO DIVERS 8092 3/28/2026 DIVE EQUIP CS 30.28 30.28 Voucher: 8101
Sub total for EFT GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK: 110,223.38
Page: 2
8 September 22, 2026 Item 3
09/09/2026
Check List
City of Del Mar
3 1:55:35PM
apChkLst Final Page:

Bank : gusbnk GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK
Check # Date Vendor Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 141646 9/4/2026 acm05 ACME SAFETY & SUPPLY CORP175116-00 8/21/2026 JDB FLAGGERS 1,197.50 1,197.50 Voucher: 141646
141647 9/4/2026 sbc03 AT&T 9391054486 8/20/2026 TELEPHONE AUG 187.21 Voucher: 141647 9391026230 8/20/2026 TELEPHONE AUG 55.19 9391031506 8/20/2026 TELEPHONE AUG 54.10
9391026228 8/20/2026 TELEPHONE AUG 27.83 324.33
141648 9/4/2026 bri14 BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPE SERVICES 9844187 7/30/2026 LANDSCAPE SRVCS 16,912.37 16,912.37 Voucher: 141648
141649 9/4/2026 cin02 CINTAS 5355533402 8/20/2026 FIRST AID KIT SUPP CH 42.30 42.30 Voucher: 141649
141650 9/4/2026 com04 DEL MAR COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS 09042026 9/4/2026 RENT ASSIST PRGM-FY27 49,112.50 49,112.50 Voucher: 141650
141651 9/4/2026 evo01 EVOLUTION ELECTRICAL, CONTRACTORS LLC 272807956 6/29/2026 ELECTRICAL SRVCS PW 324.05 324.05 Voucher: 141651
141652 9/4/2026 gov04 GOVCONNECTION, INC. 77929020 8/21/2026 WIRELESS RPLCMNT PROJ 2,500.16 2,500.16 Voucher: 141652
141653 9/4/2026 gra02 GRAINGER 9046810801 8/18/2026 MAINT/REP SUPP PW 184.18 184.18 Voucher: 141653
141654 9/4/2026 hdl01 HDL COREN & CONE SIN066345 7/31/2026 ACFR STAT DATA 795.00 795.00 Voucher: 141654
141655 9/4/2026 hop03 HOPE FOR SAN DIEGO 08242026 8/24/2026 PHCC EVENT 2026-387 800.00 800.00 Voucher: 141655
141656 9/4/2026 kim04 KIMBALL MIDWEST 104760038 8/19/2026 TOOLS/EQUIP PW 140.60 140.60 Voucher: 141656
141657 9/4/2026 boh02 NANCY K. BOHL INC. DBA:, THE COUNSELING TEAM INTL INV110840 9/3/2026 CONSULT SRVCS AUG 409.50 409.50 Voucher: 141657
141658 9/4/2026 nap01 NAPA AUTO PARTS 762497 8/5/2026 OPERATING SUPP 206.22 Voucher: 141658 762599 8/6/2026 OPERATING SUPP 174.23 380.45 141659 9/4/2026 nct01 NCTD 732383 8/12/2026 SUBMITTAL REVIEW FEE 745.89 745.89 Voucher: 141659
141660 9/4/2026 con17 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTRS, OF CALIFORNIA, A MEDICAL 92057828 8/12/2026 EMPLOYEE TESTING AUG 214.00 Voucher: 141660 92138817 8/19/2026 EMPLOYEE TESTING AUG 214.00 428.00 141661 9/4/2026 ost05 OSTARI INC 503346 8/25/2026 FIREWALL SRVCS ANNUAL AI SUB 3,702.94 Voucher: 141661 503347 8/25/2026 FIREWALL SRVCS MAINT 1,764.90 5,467.84 Page: 3
9 September 22, 2026 Item 3
09/09/2026
Check List
City of Del Mar
4 1:55:35PM
apChkLst Final Page:

Bank : gusbnk GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 141662 9/4/2026 pac05 PACIFIC PIPELINE SUPPLY S100491552.001 8/19/2026 WATER METER SUPP 1,344.53 1,344.53 Voucher: 141662
141663 9/4/2026 par03 PARKHOUSE TIRE INC 3010469945 8/18/2026 FIRE ENGINE TIRES 1,685.68 1,685.68 Voucher: 141663
141664 9/4/2026 rcp01 RCP BLOCK & BRICK INC. 33689733 8/25/2026 FLOOD SUPPLIES PW 1,362.51 1,362.51 Voucher: 141664
141665 9/4/2026 sdg02 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC0012 6209 1548 9 8/31/2026 UTILITIES AUG 128.91 128.91 Voucher: 141665
141666 9/4/2026 sde01 SD ELECTRIC BIKE LLC, DBA SD ELECTRIC BIKE 17954 8/27/2026 ELEC BIKE MAINT CS 153.64 153.64 Voucher: 141666
141667 9/4/2026 soc06 SOCAL TRUCK ACCESSORIES, AND EQUIPMNT INC INV-53842 8/10/2026 CHEVY MAINT PW 4,705.99 4,705.99 Voucher: 141667
141668 9/4/2026 ter11 TERMINIX COMMERCIAL 474998720 8/7/2026 PEST CONTROL PW AUG 150.00 Voucher: 141668 475146685 8/11/2026 PEST CONTROL PW AUG 121.00 474998705 8/7/2026 PEST CONTROL PW AUG 103.00 374.00
141669 9/4/2026 ter01 TERMINIX INT CO LTD, PARTNERSHIP 474998740 8/7/2026 PEST CONTROL PW AUG 106.85 106.85 Voucher: 141669
141670 9/4/2026 dis05 THE REINALT-THOMAS CORP, DISCOUNT TIRE 5084113102 8/5/2026 TIRE MAINT PW 486.28 486.28 Voucher: 141670
141671 9/4/2026 tma01 TMAG HEMET C, LLC TMC-TG123736 8/4/2026 CHEVY SILVERADO 50,000.00 50,000.00 Voucher: 141671
141672 9/4/2026 t-mo01 T-MOBILE USA INC 216066393 8/20/2026 TELEPHONE AUG 118.05 118.05 Voucher: 141672
141673 9/4/2026 uli02 ULINE 212271223 8/20/2026 OPERATING SUPP PW 478.09 478.09 Voucher: 141673
141674 9/4/2026 uni31 UNITED SITE SRVCS OF, CALIFORNIA INC 114-14276128 8/25/2026 PORTABLE RESTROOM SEP 32.42 32.42 Voucher: 141674
141675 9/4/2026 ver12 VERIZON SV848844 8/20/2026 TELEPHONE JUL 128.54 128.54 Voucher: 141675
Page: 4
10 September 22, 2026 Item 3
09/09/2026
Check List
City of Del Mar
5 1:55:35PM
apChkLst Final Page:

Bank : gusbnk GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 141676 9/4/2026 ver03 VERIZON WIRELESS 570653198-00008 8/18/2026 TELEPHONE AUG 353.94 Voucher: 141676 872374736-00003 8/18/2026 TELEPHONE AUG 229.94 872374736-00004 8/18/2026 TELEPHONE AUG 226.05
570653198-00006 8/18/2026 TELEPHONE AUG 186.16
542070053-00002 8/20/2026 TELEPHONE AUG 169.18
570653198-00009 8/18/2026 TELEPHONE AUG 60.64
570653198-00007 8/18/2026 TELEPHONE AUG 38.01 1,263.92
141677 9/4/2026 vil12 VILLANUEVA, JENNIFER 08242026 8/24/2026 PHCC EVENT 2026-365 800.00 800.00 Voucher: 141677
141678 9/4/2026 vis07 VISTA PAINT CORPORATION 2026-512940-00 8/25/2026 TRAFFIC PAINT PW 387.86 387.86 Voucher: 141678
141679 9/4/2026 wax02 WAXIE'S ENTERPRISES, LLC.84080772 8/25/2026 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 667.11 Voucher: 141679 84080494 8/25/2026 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 429.45 84072477 8/19/2026 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 250.80 1,347.36
Sub total for GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK: 144,669.30
Page: 5
11 September 22, 2026 Item 3
09/09/2026
Check List
City of Del Mar
6 1:55:35PM
apChkLst Final Page:
52 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 254,892.68 Page: 6
12 September 22, 2026 Item 3
09/15/2026
Check List
City of Del Mar
1 10:38:50AM
apChkLst Final Page:

Bank : eusbnk EFT GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK
Check # Date Vendor Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 8102 9/16/2026 azt02 AZTEC LANDSCAPING INC, DBA AZTEC JANITORIAL J2426 8/31/2026 PORTER SRVCS PW AUG 7,500.00 7,500.00 Voucher: 8102
8103 9/16/2026 cor15 CORONADO MOBILE STORAGE INC AUG-26 8/31/2026 STORAGE CONTRS SEP 255.00 Voucher: 8103 SEP-26 8/31/2026 STORAGE CONTRS AUG 255.00 510.00 8104 9/16/2026 dev02 DEVANEY PATE MORRIS & CAMERON 12141 8/17/2026 CITY ATTORNEY JUL 22,659.40 Voucher: 8104 12140R 8/31/2026 LEGAL FEES JUL 2,293.60 24,953.00 8105 9/16/2026 dix01 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO 06-0655177 8/27/2026 OPERATING SUPP PW 129.15 Voucher: 8105 06-0655498 8/28/2026 OPERATING SUPP PW 72.72 06-0655172 8/26/2026 OPERATING SUPP PW 36.00 237.87
8106 9/16/2026 fer07 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES LLC, DBA FERGUSON WATERWORKS 0914733 8/26/2026 WATER METER PARTS 319.73 Voucher: 8106 0914686 8/28/2026 WATER METER PARTS 260.57 580.30 8107 9/16/2026 haz05 HAZARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 09022026 9/2/2026 JDB PAVING #3 61,041.86 61,041.86 Voucher: 8107
8108 9/16/2026 kle01 KLEINFELDER 1606048 8/25/2026 CDM BRIDGE JUL 11,043.71 11,043.71 Voucher: 8108
8109 9/16/2026 sca12 SCA OF CA LLC CA0946201 8/31/2026 STREET SWEEPING AUG 2,954.15 2,954.15 Voucher: 8109
8110 9/16/2026 sit01 SITEONE LNDSCP SUPPLY LLC170201847-001 8/20/2026 OPERATING SUPP PW 100.00 Voucher: 8110 169890034-001 8/12/2026 OPERATING SUPP PW 22.37 122.37 Sub total for EFT GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK: 108,943.26
Page: 1
13 September 22, 2026 Item 3
09/15/2026
Check List
City of Del Mar
2 10:38:50AM
apChkLst Final Page:

Bank : gusbnk GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK
Check # Date Vendor Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 141683 9/16/2026 acm05 ACME SAFETY & SUPPLY CORP175186-00 8/28/2026 JDB FLAGGERS 1,310.00 1,310.00 Voucher: 141683
141684 9/16/2026 sbc03 AT&T 9391065056 8/27/2026 TELEPHONE AUG 25.90 Voucher: 141684 9391065055 8/27/2026 TELEPHONE AUG 25.87 51.77 141685 9/16/2026 bab03 BABCOCK LABORATORIES, INCCI60014-10666 9/1/2026 WATER QUALITY TESTING 575.00 575.00 Voucher: 141685
141686 9/16/2026 cas19 CASPER COMPANY 261151-0 8/28/2026 DEMO SRVCS PW 1,050.00 1,050.00 Voucher: 141686
141687 9/16/2026 cit07 CITY OF SAN DIEGO 1000459785 9/2/2026 WATER TREATMENT JUL 48,957.79 48,957.79 Voucher: 141687
141688 9/16/2026 del06 DEL MAR AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE 53275 8/27/2026 VEH MAINT PW #82 304.04 304.04 Voucher: 141688
141689 9/16/2026 ats01 GARDA CL WEST LOCKBOX #233209 10854834 9/1/2026 ARMORED SRVCS SEP 842.50 842.50 Voucher: 141689
141690 9/16/2026 gcf01 GILBERT CASTRO, DBA GC FENCE CORP 000707 8/21/2026 FENCING SRVCS CREST 650.00 650.00 Voucher: 141690
141691 9/16/2026 gra02 GRAINGER 9060616480 8/27/2026 MAINT/REP SUPP PW 283.67 Voucher: 141691 9060910008 8/28/2026 MAINT/REP SUPP PW 254.48 538.15 141692 9/16/2026 san10 PACIFIC SAFETY CENTER 88527 8/27/2026 MBRSHP RWL 11/1/26-11/1/27 185.00 185.00 Voucher: 141692
141693 9/16/2026 par03 PARKHOUSE TIRE INC 3010469945 8/31/2026 FIRE ENGINE TIRES 1,685.68 1,685.68 Voucher: 141693
141694 9/16/2026 sdg02 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC0081 7377 2988 5 9/4/2026 UTILITIES AUG 9,588.33 Voucher: 141694 0066 5491 6833 1 9/4/2026 UTILITIES AUG 5,790.44 0067 3735 0888 1 9/4/2026 UTILITIES AUG 249.85
2100 0065 8024 7 9/4/2026 UTILITIES AUG 168.09
0096 3381 7034 7 9/4/2026 UTILITIES AUG 64.43
0053 7739 5442 0 9/4/2026 UTILITIES AUG 41.02
0085 7750 3585 7 9/4/2026 UTILITIES AUG 28.92
0066 5491 5032 1 9/2/2026 UTILITIES AUG 24.66
0097 5436 8967 5 9/4/2026 UTILITIES AUG 19.47
0055 0306 8492 2 9/4/2026 UTILITIES AUG 16.65 15,991.86 141695 9/16/2026 sma03 SMARTSIGHTS TECHNOLOGIES LLC, SMARTSIGHTS LLC 265840823-1 year 8/27/2026 WIN 911 SUBSCRIPTION 3,355.00 3,355.00 Voucher: 141695
Page: 2
14 September 22, 2026 Item 3
09/15/2026
Check List
City of Del Mar
3 10:38:50AM
apChkLst Final Page:

Bank : gusbnk GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 141696 9/16/2026 uni25 STAXUP - UNITS LLC 19344 9/8/2026 STORAGE CS AUG 289.85 289.85 Voucher: 141696
141697 9/16/2026 t-mo01 T-MOBILE USA INC 980755647 8/20/2026 TELEPHONE AUG 12.60 12.60 Voucher: 141697
141698 9/16/2026 und01 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT, OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 820260241 9/1/2026 CONT SRVCS AUG 186.40 Voucher: 141698 26-270566 9/1/2026 CA STATE FEES 80.91 267.31 141699 9/16/2026 vis07 VISTA PAINT CORPORATION 2026-516783-00 8/27/2026 TRAFFIC PAINT PW 258.58 Voucher: 141699 2026-516495-00 8/27/2026 TRAFFIC PAINT PW 96.96 355.54 141700 9/16/2026 wes29 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC248066 8/15/2026 TREE MAINT SRVCS 8/1-8/15/26 340.00 340.00 Voucher: 141700
141701 9/16/2026 zon02 ZONE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, CONSULTING 25033-08 8/28/2026 TRAFFIC ENGR SRVCS AUG 2,362.50 2,362.50 Voucher: 141701
Sub total for GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK: 79,124.59
Page: 3
15 September 22, 2026 Item 3
09/15/2026
Check List
City of Del Mar
4 10:38:50AM
apChkLst Final Page:
28 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 188,067.85 Page: 4
Evy Escalante

9.15.26 16 September 22, 2026 Item 3
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Amanda Lee, Principal Planner
Nestor Machado, Associate Management Analyst
Karen Brindley, Planning & Community Development Director Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: September 22, 2026
SUBJECT: Approval of Professional Services Agreement with Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG) for Environmental and Planning Services
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Consistent with City Council direction provided on May 19, 2026, staff recommends the City Council: 1) Approve a Professional Services Agreement with MIG (Attachment A), in an amount not to exceed $169,295 to prepare and process California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation and planning-level amendments to the City of Del Mar (City) Community Plan (General Plan), Zoning Code, and Local Coastal Program (LCP), and Rezone 11.7 acres on the North Bluff to increase the residential density to allow multiple dwelling unit development; 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement and any term extension amendments provided for in the Agreement, contingent upon satisfactory performance by the consultant; and 3) Allocate $19,295 from the General Fund to Special Projects Fund 49.8000.8042, which is needed to fully fund this work above the $150,000 already included in the approved FY 2026-27 Budget.

BACKGROUND:

On May 19, 2026, the City Council directed staff to initiate planning and zoning amendments related to affordable housing in preparation for the 7th Cycle Housing Element as described in the agenda report for Item 9, linked below:
https://www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter#docaccess-dd68479353df6f36e2e2f6b6ecc5f484 On July 23, 2026, the City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) #2026-06 soliciting proposals from qualified planning and environmental consulting firms that have significant experience processing comprehensive residential land use policy and zoning code amendments. The consultant’s scope of work includes preparing and processing environmental review documentation and amendments to land use policies and regulations, including text and map changes creating a new land use designation and base zone in the Del Mar Community Plan, Zoning Code, and certified LCP that will apply to property in the North Bluff planning area.
1 September 22, 2026 Item 5
City Council Agenda Report
MIG Agreement – North Bluff Amendments
September 22, 2026

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

The City received two proposals from MIG and The Code Group, Inc. (VCA Code). Staff evaluated both proposals against the criteria stated in the RFQ: technical competence, responsiveness to the RFQ, including experience with environmental and planning services for multiple-dwelling unit development on coastal bluff sites, ability to manage complex projects on schedule, and cost of services.

Staff recommends that the City enter into an agreement with MIG for an initial three-year period, with an option to extend for an additional two-years to ensure compliance with CEQA and the Coastal Act. Staff determined that MIG is well-qualified to perform the scope of work.

The cost of services is an amount not to exceed $169,295, which staff found competitive for the scope of work relative to the other proposal received.

If the City Council authorizes the Agreement, the consultant is expected to begin work in September 2026 and complete all tasks by January 2028. The schedule primarily covers completion of requirements for CEQA and Coastal Act compliance with a target to obtain City Council approvals of the CEQA determination and amendments/rezone by October 2027:
 Week of 9/28/2026 – Kickoff project and initiate CEQA tech studies and analysis, amendments to General Plan, Zoning Code, and LCP, and Rezone.  By May 2027 – Public drafts of the CEQA document and amendments to General Plan, Zoning Code, and LCP, and rezone made available for public review.  By July 2027 – Schedule Planning Commission noticed public hearing to provide a recommendation to City Council.
 By October 2027 (13 months) – Schedule City Council noticed public hearings to adopt Resolutions and Introduce and Adopt Ordinances.

This 13-month timeframe is streamlined as much as possible while still meeting the necessary procedures required by CEQA, California Coastal Act, and California Government Code laws.

The target is to have public drafts available for review and processing in May 2027 to meet the public participation priorities and requirements stated in these State laws. The process with Coastal Commission to obtain final certification of the Ordinances for the LCP Amendment and Rezone would immediately follow City Council actions to adopt the Resolutions and Ordinances.

The consultant agreement also covers task work to prepare a memo identifying a financial model and options that may be available for the City to recover a reasonable share of the costs associated with this work effort in accordance with State law. Those tasks are targeted to be completed by January 2028 and will be secondary in priority to the amendments/rezone.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The cost of the work to be completed is $169,295. Funds for this work totaling $150,000 are included in the approved FY 2026-27 Operating and Capital Budget. As part of the 2 September 22, 2026 Item 5
City Council Agenda Report
MIG Agreement – North Bluff Amendments
September 22, 2026

recommended action, City Council is being asked to allocate an additional $19,295 from the General Fund to the Special Projects Fund, to cover the cost of the work to be completed.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The proposed City Council action does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it will not have a potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA.

HOUSING IMPACT:

The City of Del Mar has a certified Housing Element and has produced 188 net-new units for the 6th Cycle, which exceeds its assigned 175-unit Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. The City was assigned a high proportion of affordable housing units – 82% of its total RHNA; and has produced 10 lower income units to-date, which is 9% of the 113 lower income units assigned.

The proposed consultant agreement is related to an additional strategy to produce lower income units. It will facilitate processing of plan amendments and a rezone of 11.7 acres on the North Bluff that includes properties under two separate site ownerships: Lazier (6.21 acres) and Whalen (5.5 acres). These seven properties are currently designated very lowdensity single dwelling unit residential development (one unit per lot). As part of Housing Element Program 1E, these properties were identified as part of a larger list of site options for a potential contingency rezone. The City has sufficient sites in place that allow 20 dwelling units per acre to meet its assigned RHNA. In accordance with City Council direction on May 19, 2026, the contract award to MIG will initiate processing of amendments and a rezone for these North Bluff properties to allow development at a density of 20 dwelling units per acre.

NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS & PRIORITIES:

This item is a Tier 2 City Council special project on the City Council’s FY 2026-2027 Work Plan.

ATTACHMENT:

Attachment A – Professional Services Agreement with MIG

PROJECT FUND ACCOUNT AMOUNT
6 th Cycle Housing Element
Program 1E Special Projects Fund 49.8000.8042 $19,295
3 September 22, 2026 Item 5

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF DEL MAR AND MOORE IACOFANO GOLTSMAN, INC. (MIG)

FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTING SERVICES
This Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this 22nd day of September 2026 by and between the City of Del Mar, a Charter City and a municipal corporation (“City”), and Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG) (“Consultant”) (collectively “Parties”).

WHEREAS, the City desires to employ a consultant to provide consulting services to prepare and process California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation and planninglevel amendments to the City of Del Mar Community Plan (General Plan), Zoning Code, and Local Coastal Program (LCP), and Rezone 11.7 acres on the North Bluff (“Consulting Services”). Said work is to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth below and as described in the scope of services, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the City has initially determined that Consultant is qualified by experience and ability to perform the services desired by City, and Consultant is willing to perform such services; and
WHEREAS, Consultant will conduct all the work as described and detailed in this Agreement to be provided to the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto mutually covenant and agree with each other as follows:

1. CONSULTING SERVICES.

1.1 Scope of Services. The Consultant shall perform the Consulting Services as set forth in the written Scope of Services, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein. Such services shall be provided at the direction of the City.

1.2. Designated Point of Contact. City shall provide Consultant access to appropriate staff and resources for the coordination and provision of services. Prior to the start of services, each Party shall identify for the other a designated point of contact for administration and oversight of the services to be provided under this Agreement, with notification of any change to the point of contact within thirty (30) days.

1.3. City Modification of Scope of Services. City may order changes to the Scope of Services within the general scope of this Agreement consisting of additions, deletions, or other revisions. If such changes cause a change in the Consultant’s cost of, or time required for, completion of the Scope of Services, an equitable adjustment to Consultant’s compensation and/or contract time shall be made, subject to the City’s approval. All such changes shall be authorized in writing, executed by Consultant and City. If such a change results in an extension of the term of this Agreement or increases the maximum amount to be paid under this Agreement, no such change shall have any force or effect unless an amendment to this Agreement is approved by the City Council.

2. DURATION OF AGREEMENT.

2.1 Term, Time for Performance. This Agreement shall be effective for a period of three (3) years beginning on September 22, 2026, and ending on September 22, 2029.

The agreement may be extended for an additional two (2) year period, upon written approval of both parties. Time is of the essence for this Agreement and each provision of this Agreement, unless otherwise specified in this Agreement.

Attachment A 4 September 22, 2026 Item 5
Professional Services Agreement
For North Bluff Amendments

2.2 Delay. Any delay occasioned by causes beyond the control of Consultant may merit an extension of time for the completion of the Scope of Services. When such delay occurs, Consultant shall immediately notify the Project Coordinator in writing of the cause and the extent of the delay, whereupon the Project Coordinator shall ascertain the facts and the extent of the delay and grant an extension of time for the completion of the Consulting Services when justified by the circumstances provided that no extension of time shall be granted which would extend the time for performance beyond the date specified in section 2.1 above.

2.3 City’s Right to Terminate for Default. Should Consultant be in default of any covenant or condition hereof, City may immediately terminate this Agreement for cause if Consultant fails to cure the default within ten (10) calendar days of receiving written notice of the default.

2.4 City’s Right to Terminate without Cause. Without limiting its rights in the event of Consultant’s default, City may terminate this Agreement, without cause, by giving written notice to Consultant. Such termination shall be effective upon receipt of the written notice.

Consultant shall be compensated for all effort and material expended on behalf of City under the terms of this Agreement, up to the effective date of termination. All personal property remaining in City facilities or on City property thirty (30) days after the expiration or termination of this Agreement shall be, at City’s election, considered the property of City.

3. PERFORMANCE AFTER TERMINATION. Upon termination of this Agreement as provided herein, Consultant shall, within such reasonable time period as may be directed by City Manager, complete those items of work which are in various stages of completion and which City Manager determines are necessary to be completed by Consultant to allow the project to be completed in a timely, logical, and orderly manner. Upon termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, models, photographs, reports, and other materials prepared by Consultant shall be delivered to the City Manager, upon his request, as property of City.

4. COMPENSATION.

4.1 Total Amount. Compensation to Consultant shall be provided in accordance with the rates described in the Scope of Services contained in Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein. Consultant shall bill the City for work provided and shall present a written request for such payment monthly. City shall pay all invoices in arrears and shall in no event be required to pay for any services provided by Consultant in advance. Consultant acknowledges that it is not guaranteed any particular amount of work.

4.2 Additional Services. City may, as the need arises or in the event of an emergency, request additional services of Consultant. Should such additional services be required, Compensation therefore shall be paid to the Consultant in accordance with Scope of Services contained in Exhibit “A.” City and Consultant shall agree to the costs prior to commencement of such work.

5. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Consultant is, for all purposes arising out of this Agreement, an independent contractor. The Consultant has and shall retain the right to exercise full control and supervision of all persons assisting the Consultant in the performance of said services hereunder, the City only being concerned with the finished results of the work being performed. Neither Consultant nor Consultant’s employees shall in any event be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled, including, but not limited to, overtime, any Attachment A 5 September 22, 2026 Item 5
Professional Services Agreement
For North Bluff Amendments

retirement benefits, workers’ compensation benefits, any injury leave or other leave benefits, Consultant being solely responsible for all such matters, as well as, compliance with social security and income tax withholding and all other regulations and laws governing such matters.

6. STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE. Consultant agrees that it has the financial resources, service experience, completion ability, personnel, and experience in dealing with public agencies necessary for performing the Scope of Services and that such performance shall be in accordance with the standards customarily adhered to by an experienced and competent Consultant using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by reputable Consultants practicing in the same field of service in the State of California. By executing this Agreement, Consultant represents that it has demonstrated trustworthiness and possesses the quality, fitness, and capacity to perform the Agreement in a manner satisfactory to City. Additionally, Consultant and all of Consultant’s employees or agents shall secure and maintain in force such permits and licenses as are required by law in connection with the furnishing of services pursuant to this Agreement.

7. AUDIT OF RECORDS.

7.1 At any time during normal business hours and as often as may be deemed necessary, the Consultant shall make available to a representative of City for examination all of its records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement and shall permit City to audit, examine, and/or reproduce such records. Consultant shall retain such financial and program service records for at least four (4) years after termination or final payment under this Agreement.

7.2 The Consultant shall include the City’s right to audit under this section in any and all of their subcontracts, and shall ensure that these sections are binding upon all subcontractors.

8. CONFIDENTIALITY. All Consulting services performed by Consultant, including, but not limited to, all drafts, data, correspondence, proposals, reports, research and estimates compiled or composed by Consultant, pursuant to this Agreement, are for the sole use of the City, its agents and employees. Neither the documents nor their contents shall be released to any third party without the prior written consent of the City. This provision does not apply to information that (a) was publicly known, or otherwise known to Consultant, at the time that it was disclosed to Consultant by the City, (b) subsequently becomes publicly known through no act or omission of Consultant or (c) otherwise becomes known to Consultant other than through disclosure by the City. Except for any subcontractors that may be allowed upon prior agreement, neither the documents nor their contents shall be released to any third party without the prior written consent of the City. The sole purpose of this section is to prevent disclosure of City’s confidential and proprietary information by Consultant or subcontractors.

9. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.

9.1 Consultant shall at all times comply with all federal, state and local conflict of interest laws, regulations, and policies applicable to public contracts and procurement practices, including, but not limited to, California Government Code §§ 81000 et seq. (Political Reform Act) and §§ 1090 et seq. Consultant shall immediately disqualify itself and shall not use its official position to influence in any way any matter coming before the City in which the Consultant has a financial interest as defined in Government Code § 87103. Consultant represents that it has no knowledge of any financial interests, which would require it to disqualify itself from any matter on which it might perform services for the City.

Attachment A 6 September 22, 2026 Item 5
Professional Services Agreement
For North Bluff Amendments

9.2 Consultant shall comply with all of the reporting requirements of the Political Reform Act. The Consultant shall file a Fair Political Practices Commission Form 700 (Assuming Office Statement) within thirty (30) calendar days of the City’s determination that the Consultant is subject to a conflict of interest code, if applicable. The Consultant shall also file a Form 700 (Annual Statement) on or before April 1, disclosing any financial interests held during the previous calendar year for which the Consultant was subject to a conflict of interest code.

9.3 If, in performing the Consulting Services set forth in this Agreement, the Consultant makes, or participates in, a “governmental decision” as described in Title 2, section 18704 of the California Code of Regulations, or performs the same or substantially all the same duties for the City that would otherwise be performed by a City employee holding a position specified in the department's conflict of interest code, the Consultant shall be subject to a conflict of interest code requiring the completion of one or more statements of economic interests disclosing the Consultant’s relevant financial interests.

10. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. All documents, data, studies, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports prepared by Consultant under this Agreement shall be considered the property of City. Consultant shall be permitted to reference and use said materials for use in future studies, work, and marketing so long as said materials are considered “public documents” and are not subject to attorney-client privilege, or the subject of pending closed or executive session discussions.

11. INSURANCE

11.1 Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the Consultant, their agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Insurance shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than “A” and “VII” and are admitted to do business in the State of California, unless otherwise approved in writing by the City’s Risk Manager.

11.2 Consultant’s liabilities, including but not limited to Consultant’s indemnity obligations, under this Agreement, shall not be deemed limited in any way to the insurance coverage required herein. All policies of insurance required hereunder must provide that the City is entitled to thirty (30) days prior written notice (ten (10) days for cancellation due to non-payment of premium) of cancellation or non-renewal of the policy or policies. Maintenance of specified insurance coverage is a material element of this Agreement.

11.3 Types and Amounts Required. Consultant shall maintain, at minimum, the following insurance coverage for the duration of this Agreement:

11.3.1 Commercial General Liability (CGL). Insurance written on an ISO Occurrence form CG 00 01 07 98 or equivalent providing coverage at least as broad which shall cover liability arising from any and all personal injury or property damage in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence and subject to an annual aggregate of $2,000,000. There shall be no endorsement or modification of the CGL limiting the scope of coverage for either insured vs. insured claims or contractual liability. All defense costs shall be outside the limits of the policy.

11.3.2 Commercial Automobile Liability. For all of the Consultant's automobiles including owned, hired and non-owned automobiles, automobile insurance written on an ISO form CA 00 01 12 90 or a later version of this form or an equivalent form providing Attachment A 7 September 22, 2026 Item 5
Professional Services Agreement
For North Bluff Amendments

coverage at least as broad for bodily injury and property damage for a combined single limit of $300,000 per occurrence. Insurance certificate shall reflect coverage for any automobile (any auto).

11.3.3 Workers' Compensation. For all of the Consultant's employees who are subject to this Agreement and to the extent required by applicable state or federal law, a Workers' Compensation policy providing at minimum $1,000,000 employers' liability coverage.

The Consultant shall provide an endorsement that the insurer waives the right of subrogation against the City and its respective elected officials, officers, employees, agents and representatives.

11.3.4 Consulting Liability. Consulting liability (errors and omissions) coverage with a limit of $1,000,000 per claim and $2,000,000 annual aggregate. The Consultant shall ensure both that (1) the policy retroactive date is on or before the date of commencement of the Scope of Services; and (2) the policy will be maintained in force for a period of three years after substantial completion of the Scope of Services or termination of this Agreement whichever occurs last. The Consultant agrees that for the time period defined above, there will be no changes or endorsements to the policy that increase the City's exposure to loss. All defense costs shall be outside the limits of the policy.

11.4 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or selfinsured retentions are the responsibility of the Consultant and must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, or (2) the Consultant shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses.

11.5 Additional Required Provisions. The commercial general liability and automobile liability policies shall contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

11.5.1 The City, its officers, officials, employees, and representatives shall be named as additional insureds. The City's Additional Insured status must be reflected on additional insured endorsement form which shall be submitted to the City.

11.5.2 The policies are primary and non-contributory to any insurance that may be carried by the City, as reflected in an endorsement which shall be submitted to the City.

11.6 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements affecting coverage required by this Section 11. The endorsement should be on forms provided by the City or on other than the City’s forms provided those endorsements conform to City requirements. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications at any time.

12. DEFENSE AND INDEMNIFICATION.

12.1 Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend (with attorneys approved by City), and hold harmless the City, and its officers, officials, agents and employees (the “Indemnified Parties”) from any and all claims, demands, costs or liability that arise out of, or pertain to, or relate to the Consultant, its employees, agents, and subcontractors performance of services Attachment A 8 September 22, 2026 Item 5
Professional Services Agreement
For North Bluff Amendments

under this Agreement. Consultant’s duty to indemnify under this section shall not include liability for damages for death or bodily injury to persons, injury to property, or other loss, damage or expense arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct by the City or its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees. Consultant's indemnification obligations shall not be limited by the insurance provisions of this Agreement. The Parties expressly agree that any payment, attorney's fees, costs or expense City incurs or makes to or on behalf of an injured employee under the City's self-administered workers' compensation is included as a loss, expense, or cost for the purposes of this section, and that this section will survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.

12.2 This indemnity is in addition to any other rights or remedies which City may have under the law or this Agreement. In the event of any claim or demand made against any party which is entitled to be indemnified hereunder, City may, at its sole discretion, reserve, retain or apply any monies due to Consultant under this Agreement for the purpose of resolving such claims; provided however, that City may release such funds if Consultant provides City with reasonable assurances of protection of the City's interest. The City shall, in its sole discretion determine whether such assurances are reasonable.

12.3 Consultant agrees that its duty to defend arises upon an allegation of liability based upon the performance of services under this Agreement by Consultant, its officers, agents, representatives, employees, sub-consultants, or anyone for whom Consultant is liable and that an adjudication of Consultant’s liability is not a condition precedent to Consultant's duty to defend. However, in the event the City is found to be partially negligent by a court of competent jurisdiction, City will reimburse Consultant for that percentage of liability as determined by the Court for reasonable defense costs spent as a result of the City’s share of liability.

13. SUBCONTRACTORS.

13.1 The Consultant’s hiring or retaining of third parties (i.e. subcontractors) to perform services related to the Project is subject to prior approval by the City.

13.2 All contracts entered into between the Consultant and its subcontractor shall also provide that each subcontractor shall obtain insurance policies, which shall be kept in full force and effect during any and all work on this Project and for the duration of this Agreement.

The Consultant shall require the subcontractor to obtain all policies described in section 11 of this Agreement in the amounts required by the City, which shall not be greater than the amounts required of the Consultant.

13.3 In any dispute between the Consultant and its subconsultants, the City shall not be made a party to any judicial or administrative proceeding to resolve the dispute. The Consultant agrees to defend and indemnify the City as described in section 12 of this Agreement should the City be made a party to any judicial or administrative proceeding to resolve any such dispute or should the City incur any costs in responding to third-party discovery requests.

14. NON-DISCRIMINATION. Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, military or veteran status, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, or any other class protected under state, federal, or local law. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to any class or category protected under state, federal, or local law and shall make reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities. Such action shall include, but not be Attachment A 9 September 22, 2026 Item 5
Professional Services Agreement
For North Bluff Amendments

limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment, or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. Consultant agrees to post in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment any notices provided by City setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause.

15. NOTICES. All communications to either party by the other party shall be delivered to the persons listed below. Any such written communications by mail shall be conclusively deemed to have been received by the addressee five (5) calendar days after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed as noted below.

If to City: If to Consultant
City of Del Mar Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc.

City Clerk Laura R. Stetson, Principal-in-Charge
1050 Camino del Mar 401 W A St. Suite 200
Del Mar, CA 92014 San Diego, CA 92101
[email protected] [email protected]
16 ASSIGNABILITY. This Agreement and any portion thereof shall not be assigned or transferred, nor shall any of the Consultant’s duties be delegated or sub-contracted, without the express written consent of the City.

17. RESPONSIBILITY FOR EQUIPMENT. City shall not be responsible nor held liable for any damage to persons or property consequent upon the use, misuse, or failure of any equipment used by Consultant or any of Consultant’s employees or subcontractors, even if such equipment has been furnished, rented, or loaned to Consultant by City. The acceptance or use of any such equipment by Consultant, Consultant’s employees, or subcontractors shall be construed to mean that Consultant accepts full responsibility for and agrees to exonerate, indemnify and hold harmless City from and against any and all claims for any damage whatsoever resulting from the use, misuse, or failure of such equipment.

18. CALIFORNIA LAW; VENUE/MISC. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted according to the laws of the State of California. Any action brought to enforce or interpret any portion of this Agreement shall be brought in the county of San Diego, California.

Consultant hereby waives any and all rights it might have pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 394.

19. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. The Consultant shall comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations, and policies of the federal, state, and local governments applicable to this Agreement, including California Labor Code section 1720, et seq., relating to payment of prevailing wages for public works projects, if applicable. Consultant shall indemnify and defend the Indemnified Parties from and against any liability incurred due to any failure on the part of Consultant to comply with any applicable Laws.

To the extent Consultant is required to comply with prevailing wage requirements, Consultant does hereby acknowledge that they are aware of, have read, and understand the terms and implications of SB 854 and Consultant and any subconsultants ensure that they are familiar with and comply with its requirements. Such requirements include, but are not limited to, the registration requirement with the Department of Industrial Relations, State of California (DIR), pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5. As of March 1, 2015, in compliance with SB 854, the City requires all affected contractors and consultants to be registered with the DIR prior to submitting a bid or proposal on any eligible District project. As of April 1, 2015, failure to comply Attachment A 10 September 22, 2026 Item 5
Professional Services Agreement
For North Bluff Amendments

with the requirements of SB 854 by any contractor or consultant, including registration with the DIR pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5, shall be a material breach of this Agreement which may be terminated by the City in its sole and absolute discretion. Where applicable, this project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR.

20. CONSULTANT’S CERTIFICATION OF AWARENESS OF IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986. Consultant certifies that Consultant is aware of the requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (8 USC §§ 1101-1525) and has complied and will comply with these requirements, including, but not limited to, verifying the eligibility for employment of all agents, employees, subcontractors, and consultants that are included in this Agreement.

21. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matters herein. There are no other understandings, terms or other agreements expressed or implied, oral or written, except as set forth herein.

22. AMENDMENTS. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the City Attorney.

No change, alteration, or modification of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, and no verbal understanding of the Parties, their officers, agents, or employees shall be valid unless agreed to in writing by both Parties.

23. NO WAIVER. No failure of either the City or the Consultant to insist upon the strict performance by the other of any covenant, term or condition of this Agreement, nor any failure to exercise any right or remedy consequent upon a breach of any covenant, term, or condition of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of any such breach of such covenant, term or condition.

24. SEVERABILITY. The unenforceability, invalidity, or illegality of any provision of this Agreement shall not render any other provision unenforceable, invalid, or illegal.

25. DRAFTING AMBIGUITIES. The Parties agree that they are aware that they have the right to be advised by counsel with respect to the negotiations, terms and conditions of this Agreement, and the decision of whether or not to seek advice of counsel with respect to this Agreement is a decision which is the sole responsibility of each Party. This Agreement shall not be construed in favor of or against either Party by reason of the extent to which each Party participated in the drafting of the Agreement.

26. LEGAL FEES. In the event of the bringing of any action or suit by either party hereto against the other party hereunder to enforce or interpret any of the provisions, covenants or conditions of this Agreement, or arising out of any tortious conduct by either party incident to this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or suit shall be entitled to recover all costs and expenses of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees. In any action or suit brought to enforce this Agreement, the damages available shall be limited to specific performance or other such equitable relief that the court may order.

27. CONFLICTS BETWEEN TERMS. If an apparent conflict or inconsistency exists between the main body of this Agreement and the Exhibits, the main body of this Agreement shall control. If a conflict exists between an applicable federal, state, or local law, rule, regulation, order, or code and this Agreement, the law, rule, regulation, order, or code shall control. Varying degrees of stringency among the main body of this Agreement, the Exhibits, and laws, rules, regulations, orders, or codes are not deemed conflicts, and the most stringent requirement shall control. Each Attachment A 11 September 22, 2026 Item 5
Professional Services Agreement
For North Bluff Amendments

Party shall notify the other immediately upon the identification of any apparent conflict or inconsistency concerning this Agreement.

28. EXHIBITS INCORPORATED. All Exhibits referenced in this Agreement are incorporated into the Agreement by this reference.

29. SIGNING AUTHORITY. The representative for each Party signing on behalf of a corporation, partnership, joint venture, or governmental entity hereby declares that authority has been obtained to sign on behalf of the corporation, partnership, joint venture, or entity and agrees to hold the other Party or Parties hereto harmless if it is later determined that such authority does not exist.

30. CONSULTANT’S CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. Consultant certifies that Consultant is aware of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA. Consultant shall ensure that all digital documents, web content, applications, and other deliverables created, provided, or delivered under this Agreement comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA standards.

Specifically, the vendor must: 1) Ensure all deliverables meet accessibility standards as outlined by the WCAG 2.1; 2) Upon request, Consultant must provide a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) to document compliance; 3) Conduct accessibility testing using industrystandard tools and methodologies, including automated testing and user testing by individuals with disabilities, ensuring compliance with WCAG 2.1 Level AA (or the most current standard); 4) Promptly remediate any identified accessibility issues and provide fixes or updates at no additional cost to the City; and 5) Ensure ongoing compliance with any future changes to relevant rules or accessibility guidelines. If digital deliverables are found to be non-compliant, Consultant shall, at their own expense, remediate the deliverables to meet the required accessibility standards within thirty (30) days of notification.

31. BUSINESS LICENSE
Consultant shall obtain and maintain during the Agreement term a City of Del Mar Business License.
[SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE]
Attachment A 12 September 22, 2026 Item 5
Professional Services Agreement
For North Bluff Amendments

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first hereinabove written.

CITY OF DEL MAR,
a municipal corporation
By: ____________________________
Ashley Jones, City Manager
MOORE IACOFANO GOLTSMAN, INC.

By: _____________________________
Laura Stetson, Principal-in-Charge
ATTEST:
________________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Christina M. Cameron, City Attorney
Attachment A 13 September 22, 2026 Item 5
14 City of Del Mar | Environmental and Planning Consulting Services for North Bluff Amendments and Rezone 14 September 22, 2026 Item 5
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Nestor Machado, Associate Management Analyst
Karen Brindley, Planning and Community Development Director Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: September 22, 2026
SUBJECT: Initial Consideration of an Appeal of Encroachment Permit (EP) 26-050 EP Applicant: Glynn and Colette Bolitho
Applicant’s Address: 149 11th St. (APN: 300-094-07-00)
EP Appellant: Jean Jacques Abitbol, MD
c/o Jon Corn
Appellant’s Address: 1047 Stratford Ct. (APN: 300-093-10-00) REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the approval of Encroachment Permit EP26-050 (Attachment A) and decline to set the appeal for a de novo hearing.

BACKGROUND:

The 100 block of 11th Street is an improved street within the South Bluff community that is approximately 40 feet wide along the project frontage, and the dedicated public rightof-way is approximately 60 feet wide. Public parking is available on both sides of 11th Street and the street is one of the more heavily parked areas in the City because of coastal access at the west end of 11th Street.

In 2014, the subject property underwent significant redevelopment and is now a two-story single-family residence with pedestrian access only from 11th Street. Vegetation along the property frontage extends to the edge of the curb.

On April 15, 2026, Code Enforcement Case CE26-070 was opened after the City received complaints about trees and vegetation within the public right-of-way without an Encroachment Permit. The Design Review Board (DRB) 2014 landscape design concept for this property shows vegetation within the public right-of-way; however, as a condition of DRB approval, an EP was required to install vegetation within the right-of-way. 1 September 22, 2026 Item 6
City Council Agenda Report
Appeal of EP26-050 (Initial Consideration)
September 22, 2026

Staff determined that the Applicant never submitted an EP application to install the vegetation within the right-of-way as shown in the photos included in Attachment B. The Applicant was advised to contact the City to obtain an EP for any improvements in the public right-of-way or remove the unpermitted vegetation as corrective action to abate the violation.

On May 5, 2026, the Applicant applied for a Long-term, Minor Encroachment Permit (EP26-050) for the following existing vegetation and other encroachments:
 Six (6) Metrosideros excelsa trees, commonly known as New Zealand Christmas Trees
 A Rhaphiolepis Hedge along the pedestrian entryway and extending along the property line
 Crème de Mint Dwarf Pittosporum, an evergreen shrub
 Rosemary shrub
 A stone boulder water bowl for neighborhood dogs
 An 11.5” tall concrete masonry unit (CMU) block wall with stucco cap perpendicular to 11th Street
These existing encroachments are approximately 9 feet within the right-of-way along the northern property frontage and extend to the edge of the 11th Street side curb.

The Applicant stated that the improvements within the public right-of-way contribute to the streetscape aesthetic and pose no safety concern. The Applicant also stated that they maintain the vegetation and New Zealand Christmas trees (Trees) in a manner that preserves view corridors and does not impede public views or access.

On July 1, 2026, staff approved EP26-050 with conditions requiring that the vegetation, CMU block wall, and stone boulder be set back 3 feet from the edge of the 11th Street side curb to provide a “safe harbor” for pedestrians and vehicle doors to freely swing open. In addition, the Trees are required to be maintained at a height not to exceed 12 feet as shown on the approved plans included as Attachment A.

APPEAL/STAFF RESPONSES:

On July 16, 2026, the Appellant (Jean Jacques Abitbol, MD) filed an appeal of the EP26- 050 approval with the City Clerk (Attachment C). Below are the Appellant’s reasons for appeal, each followed by staff’s response in italics. The Applicant’s response to the appeal points is included as Attachment D.

Appeal Point 1: Factual Errors – the statements or evidence relied upon by City staff were inaccurate. The Appellant states that the Applicant informed the City through 2 September 22, 2026 Item 6
City Council Agenda Report
Appeal of EP26-050 (Initial Consideration)
September 22, 2026

their application that no plants would be taller than 30 inches at maturity. The existing Trees can grow up to 40 feet tall and 30 feet wide. The Appellant also asserts that City staff did not conduct a sight (sic) visit and did not inspect any photographs of the existing encroached upon area, and that the EP decision was arguably based on inaccurate and/or incomplete information. The Trees will and do create significant conflicts for motorists and pedestrians wishing to park and exit their vehicles.

Staff Response: The City’s practice is to review and make a determination on submitted proposals based on the information provided by the Applicant. City staff also research City records for the property, visit the site, and visually inspect the entire public right-ofway and surrounding environment to ensure all encroachments are captured, not only those identified by the Applicant. City staff visited the site on June 2, 2026, and June 24, 2026, to review the encroachment area and surrounding neighborhood, and met with the Applicant, Colette Bolitho, at the site on June 25, 2026, to discuss the City’s concerns about the encroachments extending to the edge of the curb and not providing a “safe harbor” for pedestrians and vehicle doors. The photos in Attachment E, dated June 24, 2026, show an open passenger door next to the CMU block wall and stone boulder within the right-of-way. The photos indicate that the passenger door would be obstructed by the wall and boulder when fully opened. As a result, under Condition SP-1, all existing encroachments within 3 feet from the edge of the 11th Street curb along the property frontage must be removed to provide a “safe harbor” for pedestrians and to allow vehicle doors to freely swing open.

Appeal Point 2: New Information – New information is available that was not available through reasonable efforts or due diligence at the time of the decision.

The Appellant’s arborist has provided new information that should be considered because the Applicant did not make this information available to the City. The Appellant’s arborist report contains new information and photographs that the Appellant asserts demonstrate the unsuitability of the Trees in the City’s right-of-way. The Appellant’s arborist report concludes that the subject Trees appear to have been planted more to restrict public access than for privacy and recommends alternatives better suited for this area of public right-of-way.

Staff Response: The Appellant’s arborist report raises concerns that the Trees deter the public from parking along the Applicant’s property frontage because the crowns of the Trees occupy an increasing portion of the right-of-way. The report also describes concerns about the existing bushes interfering with parking and states that the arborist witnessed a passenger having difficulty exiting a vehicle because the door could not open fully. As indicated in staff’s response to Appeal Point 1, City staff advised the Applicant that the existing planting did not provide a “safe harbor” for pedestrians and vehicle doors.

To address this concern, Condition of Approval SP-1 requires a three-foot “safe harbor” 3 September 22, 2026 Item 6
City Council Agenda Report
Appeal of EP26-050 (Initial Consideration)
September 22, 2026

along the entire property frontage. In addition, Condition SP-2 reserves the City’s right to require the permittee to trim vegetation extending into the paved roadway or “safe harbor” area.

The arborist report also states that the vegetation deters the public from parking along this property frontage because passenger doors are difficult to open. However, photos in the arborist report show vehicles parked along the property frontage, and historically vehicles have parked along the entirety of 11th Street because of coastal access at the west end of the street. A timeline of Google Street View images showing vehicles parked along the property frontage is provided in Attachment F, including photos from before the redevelopment of the property in 2014, when hedges extended to the edge of the 11th Street side curb.

In conclusion, staff identified the same concerns about door clearance and crown encroachment during the site visits and addressed them through Conditions SP-1 and SP-2. The arborist report therefore does not present information that was unavailable to staff through reasonable efforts or due diligence at the time of the decision (DMMC

1.12.020.(B)(2))
Appeal Point 3: Findings Not Supported – The decision maker’s stated findings to approve the permit are not supported by the information provided to the decision maker. The Appellant asserts that there is no evidence that the City considered, let alone made, the findings required by Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section 23.28.070(C).

The Appellant states that it is not possible to make any of the required findings:

Finding 1 cannot be made because the Trees will and do endanger public safety and welfare. Because the Trees will be permitted to be 8 feet wide, they will obstruct vehicle passenger doors from freely swinging open and cause difficulty for passengers exiting and entering vehicles. Vehicles will park farther from the curb, causing them to extend farther into the 11th Street traversable roadway.

Finding 2 cannot be made because the EP will unreasonably interfere with the intended use of the right-of-way. The Appellant states that the purpose of the public right-of-way is to support safe parking along the paved portion of 11th Street. The Trees as conditioned will have branches that prevent motorists from opening their doors and standing upon exiting. In addition, the EP sets up a recurring enforcement problem that the City will have difficulty addressing with the Applicant.

Finding 3 cannot be made because the EP will have an adverse impact on the welfare of the community and on the community’s appearance and aesthetics. The Trees will 4 September 22, 2026 Item 6
City Council Agenda Report
Appeal of EP26-050 (Initial Consideration)
September 22, 2026

adversely impact the community’s welfare for all the reasons stated above. In terms of aesthetics, the Trees are non-native and do not fit in this location.

Finding 4 also cannot be made because the EP does cause an unnecessary change in the character of the community. The Appellant states that if private property owners are allowed to use public land for their own benefit, it should be done in a manner that does not deter safe and convenient public on-street parking. The Appellant adds that the Applicant already has a dense privacy hedge on their own property and there is no need for the Trees to exist on public property at this location.

Finding 5 also cannot be made for the reasons already stated in the appeal as the EP has no public benefit whatsoever. There should only be low ground cover in the right-ofway, not big trees that cause innumerable problems.

Finding 6 also cannot be made because the Trees are simply the wrong fit for this area and they will convert public land for private use. The Appellant’s arborist states that the Trees will create a “walled-off” appearance and function like a hedge, which is against Council Policy 110. Members of the public who park along 11th Street should have this space in the right-of-way to temporarily place coolers, strollers, beach chairs, surfboards, and similar items while they gather their belongings to access the beach and other parts of town.

Staff Response:

Below is staff’s response to each finding:

Finding 1: Staff expressed concern about the vegetation and encroachments extending to the edge of the curb, leaving no room for a “safe harbor” on a busy street. Staff advised the Applicant that a “safe harbor” was needed, and the Applicant agreed. This three-foot “safe harbor” is a condition of approval. In addition, 11th Street is one of the widest streets in the City, with a paved roadway approximately 40 feet wide. With vehicles parked on both sides of the street, there is no pinch point for two-way traffic.

Finding 2: The dedicated public right-of-way on 11th Street is approximately 60 feet wide, and the paved roadway is approximately 40 feet wide. Del Mar has few sidewalks in residential areas such as the South Bluff, where this property is located, and the City has no plans to add sidewalks along this stretch of 11th Street. Many properties along 11th Street have some type of vegetation in the public right-of-way with varying “safe harbor” areas along property frontages. In addition, the three-foot “safe harbor” is intended to provide clearance from the ground up to ensure there are no obstructions. Per special condition SP-2 in Attachment A, the permittee shall maintain and trim the vegetation 5 September 22, 2026 Item 6
City Council Agenda Report
Appeal of EP26-050 (Initial Consideration)
September 22, 2026

within the public right-of-way to address sight-line concerns or vegetation extending into the paved roadway or safe harbor area.

Finding 3: Properties along 11th Street west of Stratford Ct. have a diverse mix of nonnative landscaping. The street has many different tree species, and the subject Trees are consistent with the appearance of the community and aesthetics of neighboring properties with vegetation within the public right-of-way.

Finding 4: This finding requires a determination that the EP will not cause an unnecessary change in the character of the community. Along this stretch of 11th Street, the community character consists of vegetation along property frontages that includes a diversity of hedges, shrubs, ground cover, and other trees such as palm trees and Torrey pines. Removal of the subject Trees would change the existing character of the 11th Street streetscape.

Finding 5: The existing Trees are required per the approved plans to be maintained at a height not to exceed 12 feet, which would be at or just below the height of the hedge on the Applicant’s private property. The Trees are planted in an area that is vegetated and not traversable by foot, like other property frontages along the south side of 11th Street, and the EP is conditioned to maintain a three-foot “safe harbor” at all times to provide a public benefit that allows vehicle passenger doors to freely swing open. With the “safe harbor” condition modification, there would be no detriment to the interests of the general public.

Finding 6: The City has no plans to widen 11th Street or to improve the vegetated area of the public right-of-way with a formal concrete sidewalk. The EP is conditioned so that if the City needs to use this area in the future, the City can revoke the EP per DMMC

23.28.180 and General Encroachment Permit Condition GEP-3 in Attachment A. In addition, the Applicant must remove all encroachments at their sole expense per DMMC

23.28.130(K) and GEP-3. The City is reducing the Applicant’s use of the public right-ofway from approximately nine feet to approximately six feet through the “safe harbor” condition. Therefore, there is no significant conversion of public property to private use.

Appeal Point 4: Conflicts – The decision to approve the permit is in conflict with a land use plan, a City policy or the Municipal Code. The Appellant states that the approval of the EP conflicts with Council Policy 110 because the Trees present a public health and safety hazard. The branches will impede pedestrians and will interfere with safe pedestrian passage within the right-of-way. Council Policy 110 also states that there must be a minimum five-foot-wide “safe harbor” along the edge of a paved roadway, which contradicts the three-foot “safe harbor” in the conditions of approval. 6 September 22, 2026 Item 6
City Council Agenda Report
Appeal of EP26-050 (Initial Consideration)
September 22, 2026

Council Policy 110 also states that proposals for encroachments that would result in an impression or appearance that the encroached upon area is owned by or reserved solely for the private use of the adjacent property will not be authorized. The Appellant asserts that approval of this EP violates Council Policy 110 because the Trees will create a walled-off area and functional hedge without any public benefit. The Appellant also asserts that the Trees conflict with the public view goals of the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Land Use Plan (LUP) because the Trees block public views to the Pacific Ocean from certain public vantage points.

Lastly, Appellant asserts that the EP conflicts with the City’s Tree, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Ordinance because of view blockage from his residence. Based on these points, the Appellant asserts that the appeal should be granted.

Staff Response: During the site visits to the property and encroachment area, staff determined that a five-foot “safe harbor” was impractical and unnecessary because the Trees are planted between four and five feet from the edge of the curb. There are no sidewalks along the south side of 11th Street, and the area is not traversable by foot.

Creating space for a pedestrian path of travel along the property frontage would be inconsistent with the character of the community. Therefore, staff requested a three-foot “safe harbor” because the average vehicle door is approximately three feet wide. DMMC

23.28.070(D) authorizes the decision maker to impose conditions of approval to protect public health, safety and welfare and to preserve the intended use of the right-of-way.

The Applicant is authorized to install low-lying ground cover in the “safe harbor” area.

Therefore, this encroached upon area does not present a public health or safety hazard, and it does not convey the impression that the encroached upon area is reserved solely for the private use of the adjacent property with no associated public benefit to the community under DMMC 23.28.040(B)(3).

The Trees are required to be maintained at a height not to exceed 12 feet, the vegetation beneath the crowns of the Trees is less than 3 feet in height, and the shrubs are sporadically placed. The Trees are planted approximately five to six feet apart and pruned to appear like “lollipops”, with a clear trunk height of approximately five feet.

The encroachment area is not traversable by foot along the entire stretch of 11th Street.

Staff checked all public vantage points and the majority of public views are from the paved roadway and the vegetation will not encroach over the paved roadway. The Appellant claims view blockages; however, the view area is not accessible to staff because it is on the Appellant’s private property. The Appellant’s property also sits at a higher elevation than the Applicant’s property due to the slope of 11th Street and location of the Trees.

Therefore, it is unknown whether the Trees block views from the Appellant’s property. 7 September 22, 2026 Item 6
City Council Agenda Report
Appeal of EP26-050 (Initial Consideration)
September 22, 2026

CONCLUSION:

DMMC Section 23.28.020 defines a Long-term, Minor Encroachment Permit as any improvement designed to or having a permanent appearance and intended for use for a period of 365 days or more. Examples of Minor Encroachments that constitute Long-term Improvements include driveway aprons, pathways and walkways, and vegetation.

Pursuant to DMMC Section 23.28.070(C), there are six required findings to approve a Long-term, Minor Encroachment Permit that generally relate to public safety, intended use of the right-of-way, community character, aesthetics, and conversion of public land for private use. An EP may be approved only if all six findings can be made.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on the information above and the findings discussed in staff’s response to Appeal Point 3, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the approval of EP26-050 (Attachment A) and decline to set the appeal for a de novo hearing.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact related to this agenda item as this is a private development proposal. All fees associated with the appeal were paid for by the Appellant.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The proposed City Council action does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378(a)(1) because it will not have a potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the 8 September 22, 2026 Item 6
City Council Agenda Report
Appeal of EP26-050 (Initial Consideration)
September 22, 2026

environment and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA. No further action under CEQA is required.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – EP26-050 Approval Letter
Attachment B – Photos of the Encroachment Area
Attachment C – Appeal of EP26-050
Attachment D – Applicant Response to the Appeal
Attachment E – Safe Harbor Date Stamped Photos
Attachment F – Google Street View History
9 September 22, 2026 Item 6
1050 Camino Del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 | 858.755.9313 | www.delmar.ca.us July 1, 2026
Glynn Bolitho and Colette Bolitho
149 11th St.

Del Mar, CA 92014
[email protected]
[email protected]
Subject: Encroachment Permit (EP) 26-050 (149 11th St.) By receipt of this letter of conditional approval of the requested EP and implementation of the development authorized therein, the applicant acknowledges that he/she has read and agrees to abide by all conditions of approval of the EP contained in this letter. The applicant also agrees to furnish a copy of the conditions of approval to the general contractor, or other party who will be responsible for project implementation, so that they too will be aware of the conditions of approval.

This letter is to notify you of the conditional approval of EP26-050 to retain existing vegetation within the public right-of-way adjacent to the property located at 149 11th Street as depicted in the plans provided as Attachment A. In addition, the approval of this EP includes the modification of existing encroachments to create a 3-foot “safe harbor” from the edge of curb along the property frontage that is free of structures that would impede the opening of a vehicle door.

Please read all the conditions carefully prior to commencement of any work. Note that gaps in numbering are intentional.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS:

SP-1 [Pedestrian Safe Harbor]
The permittee must remove all existing encroachments within 3 feet from the edge of the 11th Street curb along the property frontage. The permittee shall always maintain a 3-foot clearance from the edge of this curb. Vinca ground cover may be planted in this “safe harbor” area to prevent soil erosion and provide a traversable surface.

SP-2 [Vegetation Maintenance]
The permittee shall maintain and trim the vegetation within the public right-of-way to avoid obstruction of any city sign including any parking sign along the property frontage.

The City reserves the right to request the permittee to trim the vegetation at the City’s discretion to address any potential sight-line concerns or vegetation extending into the paved roadway or safe harbor area.

Attachment A 10 September 22, 2026 Item 6
EP26-050 (149 11th St.)
Conditional Approval Letter
July 1, 2026
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:

PW-1 [Notification prior to and after Completion of Work] The applicant agrees to notify the Public Works representative at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance of time when work authorized in this permit will be started. Applicant shall state the EP number, original date of approval and a short description of the work.

Additionally, upon completion of the work, the applicant agrees to immediately notify the Public Works representative of such completion. Any improvement or modification of the right-of-way shall be subject to inspection and approval of work from the Public Works representative. The permittee shall be responsible for calling Guillermo Landoni with MBI at 619-203-4162.

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

PW-8 [No Removal of Street Signs or Monuments]
No traffic or street signs of any kind are to be moved for any reason without first obtaining permission from the Public Works or as depicted on an approved plan set.

PW-17 [Public Works Inspection]
Permittee shall schedule inspections with the Public Works, through MBI at 619-203-4162, 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
PW-21 [Monument Preservation]
Location of monuments shall be tied out prior to work. Any City monument damaged, displaced, or destroyed by Permittee’s work shall be replaced by Permittee at Permittee’s sole expense.

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-3 [EP - Removal of improvements]
Attachment A 11 September 22, 2026 Item 6
EP26-050 (149 11th St.)
Conditional Approval Letter
July 1, 2026
The applicant agrees that if any structure, tank, pipe, conduit, duct, tunnel, or other development for which this permit is issued is, at any point in the future, determined by the City to interfere with the use, repair or improvement of the subject right-of-way, the applicant or his or her successors or assigns, shall remove the development within ten (10) days after the receipt of a written notice from Public Works to do so. The removal shall be accomplished at the expense of the applicant or his or her successors or assigns and shall be removed or relocated to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.

If an unknown underground facility is encountered, work shall cease immediately, and both the City Engineer’s office, Public Works and the utility believed to own the facility shall be notified. Work shall not proceed until permission is granted by the City Engineer’s office and a solution to the underground obstruction is resolved by the Engineer of Work.

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-7 [EP - Permit Expiration/Potential for Permit Extension] This permit and the authorization for use/work within a City right-of-way herein granted shall expire one year from the date of approval, on July 1, 2027. The permittee may request a single Extension of Time of an approved Encroachment Permit by submitting a written request to the City Manager setting forth the reason that substantial work on the permit cannot be commenced by the scheduled expiration date. The City Manager shall grant the extension unless he/she determines that there has been a change in circumstances since the time of the original grant of the permit which would create an inconsistency between the proposed encroachment and the provisions of DMMC Chapter 23.28. No extension shall be granted for a period greater than one (1) year.

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

Attachment A 12 September 22, 2026 Item 6
EP26-050 (149 11th St.)
Conditional Approval Letter
July 1, 2026
GEP-9 [EP - Compliance with CAL-OSHA]
The permittee shall obey and enforce all safety orders, rules, regulations, and recommendations of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California, CALOSHA, applicable to the work and shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes, and regulations. Any omission on the part of the City Engineer’s office to specify protective measures or devices in the Encroachment Permit shall not excuse the permittee from complying with all applicable requirements of law.

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

GEP-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 vegetation, 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.

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

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

GEP-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 Attachment A 13 September 22, 2026 Item 6
EP26-050 (149 11th St.)
Conditional Approval Letter
July 1, 2026
permit beyond the right to utilize the encroachment area in the manner authorized by the permit and subject to all of the conditions set forth herein.

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

GEP-17[EP - Improvements Subject to Compliance with ADA Accessibility Requirements] The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that all improvements are implemented in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA).

Information about requirements for complying with ADA requirements can be gained from the following website:
http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm
GEP-21[EP – Cleanup, Backfilling and Compaction]
Cleanup, backfilling, and Compaction shall be as follows:
a) Cleanup After Completion - Immediately after completion of the work, the permittee shall cleanup and remove all materials, earth and debris of any kind. If the permittee fails to do so within 24 hours after having been notified to do so by the City, the work may be done by the city and the permittee charged the costs of such work. When a pole, guy-stub or similar timber is removed and not replaces, the entire length thereof shall be removed from the ground and the hole backfilled and compacted. b) Backfilling and compaction – Backfilling and compaction of an excavation of an evacuation shall be in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Sections 301 and 306), as well as any special standards established by the City. Backfilling shall be completed before the end of the workday. No open trenches shall be left after normal working hours.
c) Restoration of right-of-way - upon completion of the encroachment work authorized by a permit, the permittee shall restore the right-of-way by replacing, repairing or rebuilding it in accordance with the specifications or any specific requirements, but not less than to its original condition before the encroachment work was commences. The permittee shall remove all obstructions, materials, and debris upon the right-of-way and shall do any other work necessary to restore the right-of-way to a safe and usable condition, as directed by the City. When the excavation occurs within an area already paved, the city may make the necessary restoration. The permittee can be notified or can respond to notification; the City may make the necessary restoration. The permittee shall reimburse the City in accordance with the costs of such work. All work shall be in accordance with City standards and Public work Standard Specifications for Construction (Green Book Section 302 and 306.).

GEP-24[EP – Archaeological]
The permittee shall cease work in the vicinity if any archaeological resources that are revealed. The City shall be notified immediately. A qualified archaeologist, retained by Attachment A 14 September 22, 2026 Item 6
EP26-050 (149 11th St.)
Conditional Approval Letter
July 1, 2026
the permittee, will evaluate the situation, and make recommendations to the City concerning the continuation of the work.

GEP-25[EP – Monument Preservation]
Location of monuments shall be tied out prior to work. Any City monument damaged, displaced, or destroyed by Permittee’s work shall be replaced by Permittee at Permittee’s sole expense.

If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Nestor Machado, Associate Management Analyst at (858) 755-9314 or email [email protected].

Clem Brown
Assistant City Manager
CB:nm
Attachments:

Attachment A – Encroachment Permit Plan

Attachment A 15 September 22, 2026 Item 6

RHAPH HEDGE RHAPH HEDGE RHAPH HEDGE
PG
PC
PG
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PG
PC
RO
PC
PC
T T
CE
PC
PC
PC
CE
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
CE
PC
G
G
PC
T
T
T
T
T
0 8 16 24
FEET
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'
GARAGE

MAIN HOUSE
POOL

A L L E Y
1 1 T H S T R E E T

PATIO DRIVEWAY

DRIVEWAY
PATIO
PATIO
PATIO
LAWN
PORCH
PATIO

EXISTING FLAGSTONE

WALKWAY

EXISTING GATE ARBOR

ON PRIVATE PROPERTY

EXISTING HEDGE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY

STONE BOULDER

WATER BOWL
FOR NEIGHBORHOOD DOGS.

APPROX 24" DIAM.

X 12" HIGH.

FREESTANDING.

MOVE BACK SO AS TO
BE 36" FROM FACE OF CURB

LANDSCAPE

IN RIGHT-OF-WAY

PRIVATE

LANDSCAPE

75.00' PROPERTY LINE
160.00' PROPERTY LINE
160.00' PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING STONE

WALL ON PRIVATE

PROPERTY

LANDSCAPE

IN RIGHT-OF-WAY

FACE OF
CURB
30'-0"

CENTERLINE OF STREET

PLANTING EXISTING IN RIGHT-OF-WAY TO REMAIN

SPECIES/BOTANICAL NAME

PITTOSPORUM 'GOLF BALL ELFIN'

DWARF GOLF BALL KOHUHU

PITTOSPORUM 'CREME DE MINT'

DWARF VARIEGATED MOCK ORANGE

RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA 'MINOR'

DWARF YEDDO

ROSMARINUS (CULTIVAR UNKNOWN)

ROSEMARY

TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES

STAR JASMINE

METEROSIDEROS EXCELSA

NEW ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREE

MATURE HEIGHT/WIDTH
18"/2'
2'/3'
MAINTAINED AS 30"
HEDGE
3'/3'
(CURRENT SIZE)
2'/3'
MAINTAINED AT 12' TALL
AND 8' WIDE

QUANTITY
3 9
30" O.C.
1 2
6 RHAPH HEDGE
SYMBOL
PC
PG
RO
T
S L
S L

LIGHTING LEGEND

EXISTING IN RIGHT-OF-WAY

DESCRIPTION

LOW VOLTAGE

PATHLIGHT

LOW VOLTAGE

SPOTLIGHT

ILLUMINATING STONE

PILLARS
HEIGHT
16"
8"

QUANTITY
2 2
SYMBOL
S
L

MAINTENANCE OF ALL PLANTING IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HOMEOWNWER.

HOMEOWNER SHALL MAINTAIN ALL LANDSCAPING IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN A WEED FREE, DISEASE FREE AND DEBRIS FREE CONDITION.

ANY DEAD/DYING/DISEASED PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE PROMPTLY REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH PLANTS OF SAME SPECIES/CULTIVAR.

HOMEOWNER SHALL PRUNE ALL PLANTING AS NEEDED TO ENSURE
PLANT HEIGHTS DO NOT EXCEED HEIGHTS INDICATED IN LEGEND.

NOTES

1. 2.

3. 4.

11.5" HIGH WALL.

CONSTRUCTED WITH 8"

CMU BLOCK WITH

STUCCO FINISH, INCLUDING
ROLLED STUCCO CAP.

REMOVE SECTION WITHIN
36" OF FACE OF CURB

REMOVE EXISTING
SHRUBS WITHIN 3'-0"
OF STREET.

REPLACE WITH VINCA

MINOR GROUND COVER

PLANTING LEGEND

PLANTING EXISTING IN RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE REMOVED

SPECIES/BOTANICAL NAME

GAURA LINDHEIMERII

WHIRLING BUTTERFLIES

CEANOTHUS (CULTIVAR UNKNOWN)

CARMEL CREEPER

PITTOSPORUM 'CREME DE MINT'

DWARF VARIEGATED MOCK ORANGE

TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES

STAR JASMINE
SYMBOL
G
CE
PC

PROPOSED GROUND COVER IN RIGHT-OF-WAY

SPECIES/BOTANICAL NAME

VINCA MINOR

LESSER PERIWINKLE
SYMBOL
T

INSTALLED FROM FLATS
6" O.C.

PRUNE RHAPHIOLEPIS
HEDGE BACK 36" FROM

FACE OF CURB
3'-0"
3'-0"

QUANTITY MATURE HEIGHT/WIDTH
6"/18"

PROGRESS PRINT DATE

CHANGES
DESIGN
DRAWN

CHECKED
SCALE

PROJECT
SHEET
OF 2 SHEETS
L-1

PROJECT CLIENT

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
990 SEACOAST DRIVE, STE. 20
IMPERIAL BEACH, CA 91932
(619) 882-2499
E-mail:
georgemercerassociates@gmail .com
GEORGE MERCER ASSOCIATES INC.

GM
GM
IF PLAN IS LESS THAN 24" X 36"
IT IS A REDUCED PRINT.

REDUCE SCALE ACCORDINGLY.

GLYNN AND COLETTE BOLITHO
NORTH
ENCROACHMENT PERMITBOLITHO RESIDENCE149 11TH STREETDEL MAR, CA 92014 26-028
1/8"= 1'
5/6/26 PROGRESS

LANDSCAPE PLANTING

AND LIGHTING PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS

LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

STATE OF CALIFORN IA
George E.L. Mercer No. 4055
Signature
Renewal Date: 4-30-27
Date:
6/25/26
6/8/26 PROGRESS
6/25/26 PROGRESS
Attachment A Attachment A 16 September 22, 2026 Item 6
0 8 16 24
FEET
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'
GARAGE

MAIN HOUSE

GUEST HOUSE
POOL

A L L E Y
1 1 T H S T R E E T

PATIO DRIVEWAY

DRIVEWAY
PATIO
PATIO
PATIO
LAWN
PORCH
PATIO

EXISTING FLAGSTONE

WALKWAY

EXISTING GATE ARBOR

ON PRIVATE PROPERTY

EXISTING HEDGE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY

STONE BOULDER

WATER BOWL
FOR NEIGHBORHOOD DOGS.

APPROX 24" DIAM.

X 12" HIGH.

FREESTANDING

LANDSCAPE

IN RIGHT-OF-WAY

PRIVATE

LANDSCAPE

75.00' PROPERTY LINE
160.00' PROPERTY LINE
160.00' PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING STONE

WALL ON PRIVATE

PROPERTY

LANDSCAPE

IN RIGHT-OF-WAY
CURB
30'-0"

CENTERLINE OF STREET

EQUIPMENT LEGEND

LOCATED IN RIGHT-OF-WAY

DESCRIPTION

PVC LATERAL FROM VALVE
TO DRIPLINES. LATERAL IS BELOW GRADE
1/2" POLYETHELENE

BROWN DRIPLINE

WITH INTEGRAL DRIP
EMITTERS 12" ON
CENTER.

DRIPLINE IS ON GRADE, WITH MAJORITY OF

DRIPLINE COVERED BY MULCH
SYMBOL

EXISTING TREE

PVC LATERAL

CONNECTS

TO DRIP

CONTROL
VALVE
(VALVE LOCATED

ON PRIVATE

PROPERTY)
1/2" POLYETHELENE

BROWN DRIPLINE

WITH INTEGRAL DRIP
EMITTERS 12" ON
CENTER

LOOP OF DRIPLINE

AROUND EACH TREE

CONTROL VALVE, MAINLINE AND CONTROLLER
ARE LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

MAINTENANCE OF ALL IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT SHALL BE
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HOMEOWNWER.

HOMEOWNER SHALL PROGRAM AND MAINTAIN IRRIGATION
SYSTEM TO MINIMIZE RUN OFF INTO STREET.

NOTES 1. 2. 3.

11.5" HIGH WALL.

CONSTRUCTED WITH 8"

CMU BLOCK WITH

STUCCO FINISH, INCLUDING

ROLLED STUCCO CAP

PROGRESS PRINT DATE

CHANGES
DESIGN
DRAWN

CHECKED
SCALE

PROJECT
SHEET
OF 2 SHEETS
L-2

PROJECT CLIENT

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
990 SEACOAST DRIVE, STE. 20
IMPERIAL BEACH, CA 91932
(619) 882-2499
E-mail:
georgemercerassociates@gmail .com
GEORGE MERCER ASSOCIATES INC.

GM
GM
IF PLAN IS LESS THAN 24" X 36"
IT IS A REDUCED PRINT.

REDUCE SCALE ACCORDINGLY.

GLYNN AND COLETTE BOLITHO
NORTH
ENCROACHMENT PERMITBOLITHO RESIDENCE149 11TH STREETDEL MAR, CA 92014 26-028
1/8"= 1'
5/6/26 PROGRESS

LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION PLAN

EXISTING CONDITIONS

LICENSED

LANDSCAPE

ARCHITECT
STATE
OF

CALIFORN IA
George
E
.L
.

Me
r
cer
No. 4055
Signature
Renewal Date: 4-30-27
Date:
6/25/26
6/8/26 PROGRESS
6/25/26 PROGRESS
Attachment A Attachment A 17 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment B 18 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment B 19 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment B 20 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
21 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
22 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
23 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
24 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
25 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
26 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
27 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
28 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
29 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
30 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
31 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Exhibit A
Attachment C 32 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
33 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
34 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
35 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
36 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
37 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
38 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
39 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
40 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
41 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Exhibit B
Attachment C 42 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
43 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
44 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
45 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
46 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
47 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
48 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Exhibit C
Attachment C 49 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
50 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
51 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
52 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
53 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
54 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
55 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
56 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
57 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
58 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
59 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
60 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
61 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
62 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
63 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
64 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
65 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
66 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Exhibit D
Attachment C 67 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
68 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment C
69 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
2762 Gateway Road
Carlsbad, California 92009
760.431.9501
760.431.9512 gdandb.com
T
F
August 21, 2026
By E-mail
Sarah Krietor
Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
1050 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, California 92014
[email protected]
Re: Response to Appeal of Encroachment Permit EP26-050 (149 11th Street) Dear Ms. Krietor:

On behalf of Glynn and Colette Bolitho, we thank you for your July 24, 2026 letter regarding Dr. Jean Jacques Abitbol’s appeal of the City of Del Mar’s conditional approval of Encroachment Permit EP26-050. The approved permit allows the Bolithos to retain existing vegetation and trees in the public right-of-way adjacent to their home situated at 149 11th Street, and as shown on GMA’s landscape plans. This letter responds to Dr. Abitbol’s July 16, 2026, appeal submitted through Jon Corn, Aannestad, Adelin & Corn LLP. We understand that the City Council’s initial consideration of the appeal is set for September 22, at the Del Mar City Hall.

Introduction.

We respectfully request that the City Council reject the appeal, and uphold the Assistant City Manager’s July 1, 2026, decision conditionally approving the permit — a decision reached only after (i) the Planning Department staff reviewed and found complete the Bolithos’ May 5, 2026, permit application; (ii) Nestor Machado, Associate Management Analyst, met with Colette Bolitho and conducted other site visits, (iii) additional department review of the Bolithos’ permit application and landscape plan; and (iv) the City’s issuance of a thorough written decision approving the permit with conditions.

The City’s permit decision and conditions ensure that the existing vegetation and trees in the right-of-way satisfy the City’s findings, namely, that the setting: (i) does not endanger the public health, safety, or welfare, or the surrounding property; (ii) unreasonably interfere with the intended use of the right-of-way; (iii) adversely affect the community, its appearance, aesthetics, or character; (iv) detrimentally affect the general public; or (v) convert public property to private use.

City staff evaluated the existing vegetation and trees during site visits, discussed these very findings with the City’s decision maker, and the City approved the permit with Special, Public Works, and General Encroachment conditions. Though the permit is subject to all conditions, we set forth just a few conditions that directly respond to issues raised in the subject appeal.

Attachment D 70 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Sarah Krietor
August 21, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
The City Approved the Permit with Protective and Responsive Conditions.

As stated, the Bolithos’ permit was approved with several highly protected and responsive conditions. Nowhere does the appeal acknowledge any of the City’s conditions. For example:

Special Conditions (SP)
The City’s SP-1 mandates that the applicant “always maintain” a 3-foot “pedestrian safe harbor” clearance from the edge of the curb along the property frontage. SP-2 requires the applicant to maintain and trim the vegetation within the right-of-way to avoid sign obstruction, potential sight-line concerns, and vegetation extending into the paved roadway or “safe harbor” area.

These conditions more than adequately respond to groundless appeal claims that the existing vegetation and trees “endanger” public safety, “interfere” with the right-of-way’s intended use, or “convert” public land to private use.

Public Works (PW) Conditions
The encroachment allows the existing vegetation and trees subject to conditions; and PW6 and PW-7 ensure that no walls, wall footings, or fences are constructed in the right-of-way; and that no traffic or street signage are moved without the permission of Public Works.

These conditions sufficiently address the appeal’s unsupported claims that the existing vegetation and trees adversely affect the community, or its appearance, aesthetics, or character.

General Encroachment (GEP) Conditions
GEP-2 indemnifies and protects the City from any claim or court action arising from permit issuance; and GEP-3 ensures that the City has the full power to require removal of improvements in the future if the City determines that any permit improvement interferes with the use, repair, or improvements of the subject right-of-way. Additionally, such removal is at the applicant’s expense and per GEP-4 and GEP-8, the removal work must comply with all terms and conditions of the permit, all applicable rules and regulations of the City, and be performed by a licensed General Contractor. GEP-5 also reserves the right of the City to revoke the permit due to non-compliance with permit requirements and conditions.

These conditions respond fully to the appeal’s generalized claims about creating a “potentially dangerous enforcement problem” or “detrimentally affecting the interests of the general public.”
GEP-12 and GEP-15 reserve the City’s right to change permit conditions, and to relocate or adjust vegetation when the City determines it is necessary and desirable; and make clear that the grant of the permit “shall not constitute” the transfer or relinquishment of any ownership or interest held by the City over the public right-of-way, nor give the applicant any vested or proprietary rights beyond the permission to use the right-of-way for vegetation and trees as authorized and pursuant to all permit conditions.

Attachment D 71 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Sarah Krietor
August 21, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
These conditions dispel the appeal’s groundless claims about causing “unnecessary changes” in the character of the community; and “converting” public property to private use.

GEP-17 requires the applicant to ensure that all improvements are implemented in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), including the SP-1 safe harbor provisions.

These conditions negate the appeal’s unsupported assertions that “disabled” persons will have difficulty exiting a vehicle from the curb side within the property frontage and that the City is not sensitive to ADA requirements.

The Grounds for Appeal Lack Merit.

The Alleged Factual Errors Claim is Wrong and Unsupported The appeal first asserts that it should be granted due to “factual errors,” but only refers to one so-called error. The alleged error is the applicant’s answer to the permit application question, namely, “Are plants taller at maturity over 30 inches?” (Emphasis added.) The applicant, Colette Bolitho, answered, “No.” Her answer is correct — there is no factual error.

Undaunted, the appeal states that Colette’s answer is not correct, stating that the “Trees can grow to be 40 feet . . . and “the City did not conduct a sight (sic) visit.” (Appeal, p. 6.) Per the appeal, the so-called “true facts” are “the Trees will and do create significant conflicts” for motorists and pedestrians, etc. (Id., bold in original.) The question asked about “plants,” and not “trees.” Colette answered the plant question correctly. Thereafter, Colette was also on-site with Nestor Machado, the City’s Associate Management Analyst, who can and did independently evaluate the existing vegetation and trees within the right-of-way. We have further confirmed that Mr. Machado conducted more than one site visit. Therefore, the appeal’s claim about the lack of City site visits is also wrong.

The New Information Claim is Unsubstantiated
The appeal states that Mr. Brown, an arborist, has provided “new information” in the form of a report and photos of existing conditions within the right-of-way, supposedly “demonstrating” the “unsuitability of the Trees in the City’s ROW.” (Appeal, p. 7, emphasis added.) Not so.

First, the appeal makes no showing the arborist report and photos constitute “new information” in accordance with the City’s grounds for appeal as set forth in Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) section 1.12.020(B)(2). This section requires the “new information” to be “not available through reasonable efforts or due diligence at the time of the decision.” The appeal, at page 7, fails to state when Dr. Abitbol received notice of the permit application (May 5,. 2026) or when he received the City’s conditional approval of the permit (July 1, 2026). Importantly, Dr. Abitbol is likely one of the residents who made the original complaint to the City back in April 2026. Absent Dr. Abitbol making these factual showings, he has not met his burden to prove that the arborist report and photos constitute “new information” that could not Attachment D 72 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Sarah Krietor
August 21, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
have been timely provided before the City’s permit approval decision, as the term “new information” is used in DMMC section 1.12.020(B)(2).

Second, the arborist makes much of the 6 trees planted in the right-of-way adjacent to the Bolithos’ home. He asserts that the trees are unsuitable and too large. He waxes about the tree widths, their crowns, their size at maturity, and their growth rates. This is much ado about nothing.

The 6 trees at issue are photographed; they are shown on the Bolithos’ landscape plans submitted to the City; and they were subject to review during several site visits by City staff.

Importantly, the trees are New Zealand Christmas trees (Metrosideros exelsa) — that are explicitly shown on the City’s “Recommended Tree List.” The stated “purpose Del Mar Street Tree List is to establish a compilation of street trees that are physically suitable to the City of Del Mar’s environment and aesthetically complement the Del Mar village-like character and ‘established community forest.’” (Emphasis added.) The City’s Recommended Tree List is found at the following link and available for review and inspection upon request to the City:
(https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https3A__www.delmar.ca.us_DocumentCenter_View_265_Recommended-2DTree-2DList-2DFinal3FbidId-3D&d=DwIFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOfv5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=vi355bgtxxsLpN5dGrcbX9BWVhnsYRCyhcOIROhIPoc&m=luxfplbD 9kYY9Zsf_QIvdsMsMnAUfc5epqGXsbu3gJX0FypMQVb-34-
TS4B1ajwc&s=aVHgIpTG1JRHf7-Mr9PWwA8HjAJuJS3Qj8WUllIEysw&e= Per the City’s Recommended Tree List, the New Zealand Christmas tree is a height of 15- 25 feet and its type is “evergreen.”
The New Zealand Christmas tree is among the “Streetscape trees” that “provide a multitude of benefits including . . . softening the impacts of urban development, enhancing property values and enhancing people’s sense of connection to nature.” (See link above, Recommended Tree List.) The New Zealand Christmas tree is on the City’s Tree List “for their compatibility to Del Mar’s climate, varied topography, and unique mixture of architecture design.” (Id., emphasis added.) “The trees [on the City’s Tree List] have been carefully selected by the City to provide a varied selection of new or replacement species for planting in public right-of-way and on publicly owned properties.” (Id., emphasis added.)
In short, the City is fully apprised of the New Zealand Christmas tree, its height and its type. And the City has already recommended the tree precisely for planting in public rights-ofway in Del Mar for a “multitude of benefits.” Accordingly, the arborist report and photos do not present “new information.”
Attachment D 73 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Sarah Krietor
August 21, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
The City’s Findings are Supported by the Record.

The City’s Findings and Practices. The appeal states that the City did not make required findings, but that statement misstates the record and City practices for the reasons set forth below.

First, the City’s record supports the approval and findings, including: (i) the inspections and enforcement actions by the City’s code enforcement (Patty Malik); (ii) the independent review of the permit application, accompanying applicant letter, and GMA landscape plan by Nestor Machodo and other city departments; (iii) City staff site visits; (iv) staff meetings and discussions with City decision makers; and (v) the City’s overall familiarity with the right-of-way adjacent to the Bolithos’ home due to its close proximity to City Hall. Therefore, City staff observations and findings are supported by the existing record that was before the City’s decision maker at or prior to its written decision conditionally approving the permit.

Second, and consistent with City practices, the City’s analyst meets with the City decision maker and others and verbally presents the permit request, its location, and whether City findings have been met, sufficient to deny, approve, or conditionally approve the permit. If the decision maker is satisfied, the letter is issued approving the permit. Issuance of the written approval is evidence that the permit applicant has met the City’s encroachment permit findings. (DMMC sec.

23.28.070(C)(1)-(6).).) The written decision itself reflects the City’s implicit findings that the applicant met the stated findings, or the permit would not have been issued.

Third, Dr. Abitbol has not met his burden to show he was harmed or prejudiced by any omission of explicit findings.

Fourth, this letter’s response to the appeal provides additional substantial evidence that the City’s approval of the permit is consistent with the stated encroachment permit findings, particularly when considering the conditions imposed by the City under the permit (see above discussion of conditions; and see below).

The Record Supports the Encroachment Permit Findings. Additionally, the appeal claims that even if the findings were made, they are unsupported by the record. This claim is also incorrect.

Below are the encroachment permit findings and why the record supports the applicant’s compliance with those findings.

1. “The proposed Encroachment will not endanger the public health, safety, or welfare, or the surrounding property”. (DMMC sec. 23.28.070(C)(1).) The public right-of-way along the Bolithos’ frontage was not used, maintained, or improved by the City when the Bolithos demolished the old residence and constructed their new home in 2014, after having received a Design Review Board (DRB) permit (DRB 13-22). In April 2026, when contacted by the City’s code enforcement (Patty Malik, Code Compliance Officer) regarding the vegetation and trees, the existing vegetation/trees were in place for approximately 12 years without complaint. And during that 12-year span, the six New Zealand Christmas trees Attachment D 74 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Sarah Krietor
August 21, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
(metrosideros excelsus) and the low-lying vegetation has matured to their existing height with maintenance and without incident.

In working with Ms. Malik this past April 2026, the Bolithos realized that their prior DRB permitting, though it did include vegetating the public right-of-way, did not also include an encroachment permit to allow for the existing vegetation and trees in the right-of-way.

Additionally, at the request of Ms. Malik, the Bolithos submitted their encroachment permit on May 5, 2026. The permitted encroachment, involving the retention of the existing vegetation and mature trees, does not “endanger” the public health, safety, welfare, or the surrounding property.

In fact, the vegetation/trees have enhanced public health, safety, and welfare, and have resulted in public benefits for the past 11-12 years, including beautifying the area adjacent to the paved roadway and softening the urban development, without the City having to bear the costs of installing and maintaining the vegetation and trees. In approving the permit, the City decision maker, with the assistance of staff, impliedly found no endangerment to the public health, safety, or welfare, or to the surrounding property.

2. “The proposed Encroachment will not unreasonably interfere with the intended use of a City Right-of-Way or Easement”. (DMMC sec. 23.28.070(C)(2).) The City can fully access the public right-of-way along the Bolithos’ frontage; the area is not fenced or walled off; and nothing about the 11-12-year-old vegetation and trees prohibits the public from enjoying the area. The Bolithos have also continued to maintain the existing vegetation and trees in their current condition, including maintaining the trees at or below their present height, periodic pruning to preserve canopy transparency, and ensuring no interference with sidewalks or utilities. As a result, the approved vegetation and trees do not “unreasonably interfere” with the intended use of the public right-of-way.

3. “The proposed Encroachment will not have an adverse impact on the welfare of the community or on the community's appearance or aesthetics”. (DMMC sec.

23.28.070(C)(3).)
The approved vegetation and trees in the public right-of-way do not have any adverse impact on the welfare of the community, or the community’s appearance or aesthetics. First, the existing vegetation and trees have been in place without complaint or incident for approximately 11-12 years. Second, the existing landscaping has improved the appearance of the public right-ofway fronting the Bolithos’ property to the benefit of the community. Third, the existing vegetation and trees help retain the soil, enhance the aesthetics, improve air quality, and provide a lovely nesting area for local and seasonal birds, all of which are community benefits, and not impacts.

4. “The proposed Encroachment will not cause an unnecessary change in the character of the community”. (DMMC sec. 23.28.070(C)(4).)
The permitted encroachments enhance the quality and character of the community. The landscaped area has been enjoyed, and can continue to be enjoyed, by non-complaining neighbors and surrounding community now and for years to come. The “change” in the area, and thereby the Attachment D 75 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Sarah Krietor
August 21, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
community, occurred over 11-12 years ago without incident. This timing alone suggests that the landscaping has had no adverse “change” in the community. That is until Dr. Abitbol purchased his home in about 2022, purchased the intervening lot with heavy vegetation and then completely denuded the vegetation on that intervening lot. He then waited until about April 2026, in which to complain that his self-created “new” view is somehow blocked, which is not the case.

5. “The proposed Encroachment will not be a detriment to the interests of the general public”. (DMMC sec. 23.28.070(C)(5).)
In an effort to improve the aesthetics of the street, and to contribute to the “urban forest” and in keeping with the City’s Recommended Tree List (see above link), the Bolithos installed the vegetation and trees (and drip irrigation) over 11-12 years ago. The selected trees are found on the City’s Recommended Tree List, also published on the City’s website. This list shows the New Zealand Christmas tree (metrosideros excelsus) as one of several species recommended for planting in the public right-of-way.

The Bolithos selected this particular tree species because of its resistance to salt-containing air, the beautiful red flowers, and grey green leaves. Many of these species thrive in public rightsof-way in Del Mar, all contributing to the urban landscape, and shading of the streets. The Bolithos added the low shrubs after the trees were installed, and they included small shrubs such as the Dwarf Pittosporum, (Pittosporum tobirum), the Golf Ball Pittosporum (Pittosporum tenuifolium), the Japanese Hawthorn (Rhaphiolepsis umbellata), the Island Mountain Lilac (Ceanothus arboreus), and the Creeping Jasmine (Trachelospermum asiaticum). The Bolithos also later installed a small community water fountain for neighborhood dogs, carved out of a single granite boulder approximately 20 inches in diameter.

The selected landscaping as installed contributes to the urban forest and adds to the streetscape character. As such, the landscaping brings public benefits to the community without any of the following potentially detrimental effects:

1. There are no unreasonable public or private scenic view obstructions,

2. There are no impediments to pedestrians, nor trip hazards,

3. There are no adjacent traffic intersections or driveways that would impede vehicular circulation, nor require sightline enforcement,

4. There is no sidewalk obstruction,

5. There is a required 3-foot safe harbor immediately adjacent to the curb along the frontage, tailored to the site,

6. The low stone wall and arbor is on the Bolithos’ property, and outside the public right-of-way,

7. There has been no attempt to create the impression that the public right-ofway is part of the Bolithos’ property, Attachment D 76 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Sarah Krietor
August 21, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S

8. There is adequate vertical clearance over the sidewalk, and no vegetation prevents car or truck parking,

9. The Bolithos acknowledge that the City retains the right to revoke the permit for noncompliance with conditions,

10. The Bolithos acknowledge that the grant of the permit does not constitute the transfer or relinquishment of any ownership or interest held by the City over the public right-of-way, nor does it give them any vested or proprietary rights beyond the City’s revocable permission to use it for the existing landscaping to the benefit of the community,

11. The City’s Recommended Tree List already states that the trees on its list, including the New Zealand Christmas tree, is one of the tree species that are “physically suitable” to the City’s environment and “aesthetically complement the Del Mar village-like character and established community forest,” and

12. The New Zealand Christmas tree is also a “streetscape tree” providing a “multitude of benefits,” including softening the impacts of urban development, enhancing property values, and enhancing people’s sense of connection to nature.” (See Recommended Tree List, p.1.) The City adds that the trees on the list, including the New Zealand Christmas tree, are intended as options for “proposed trees in the public right-of-way.” (Id., emphasis added.)
Furthermore, as to the New Zealand Christmas trees and selected shrubs, the Bolithos have accomplished the following:

1. They have laced and pruned the trees meticulously over the past 11-12 years, creating rounded, elevated canopies with a clear understory,

2. They have kept the individual trees intentionally separate to prevent them coalescing into a combined hedge,

3. They have trimmed up the canopies to keep the area over the ground clear,

4. They have maintained the trees at their current height, and

5. There is no evidence of root heave or curb disruption.

Therefore, the approved landscaping presents no detriment to the community or to the general public. Removing the vegetation and replacing it, as Dr. Abitbol suggests, with “groundcover only within the entirety of the public right-of-way” would be unsightly and not in the best interests of the community or the general public. (Appeal, p. 1.)

Attachment D 77 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Sarah Krietor
August 21, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S

6. “The proposed Encroachment will not convert significant areas of public property to private use”. (DMMC sec. 23.28.070(C)(6).)
The permitted landscaping does not “convert significant areas of public property to private use.” There is no fence or other obstruction precluding access to the public right-of-way. Despite appellant’s speculation and hyperbole, there is no appearance of privatization from any street or vantage point. Indeed, the public can easily access the area, including people walking their dogs.

The removal of all the trees and shrubs, the habitat for birds, and to denude this beautiful setting that has been maintained for public use for over about 11-12 years, would do nothing to reestablish the area as public property. (See also the above findings that also support this finding.) No Conflicts with City Policy 110 (Private Encroachments into City Rights-of-Way).

The appeal claims that the permitted landscaping “conflicts” with City Policy 110 addressing private encroachments into the City’s rights-of-way. The City has not violated its own policy.

The City’s policy addresses appropriate and inappropriate uses of the City’s rights-of-way.

The policy, by definition, applies to “proposals” for encroachments, and it includes an important exception. The policy provides:
“It is the City policy that proposals for development encroachments that would result in an impression or appearance that the encroached upon area is owned by or reserved solely for the private use of the adjacent property will not be authorized unless the City Council makes a finding that the proposed encroachment will result in a public benefit to the community.”
(Policy 110, p. 2, emphasis added.)
The policy addresses proposals for encroachment and includes an exception for proposed encroachments that will result in a public benefit to the community. Here, the Bolithos have already made application for an encroachment permit, that application was independently reviewed by city departments, and ultimately approved on July 1, 2026. The City necessarily accounted for Policy 110 during its review and routing of the Bolithos’ permit application and landscape plan. Accordingly, the policy has been addressed; and this letter’s additional factual findings have shown that the exception in the policy also applies due to the multitude of public benefits provided by the permitted landscaping, including, among others, the beneficial effect of beautifying the area adjacent to the paved roadway, without the City having to bear the costs of installing or maintaining the landscaping.

Additionally, the City’s identification of “inappropriate” encroachments in public rightsof-way include, as examples, fences, hedges, or vegetation that would create the impression that the “walled off” area is private v. public property. Further examples are pools, spas, or other amenities that would be used primarily for the benefit of the adjacent property, rather than for the public at large. (Policy 110, p. 2.) Here, the permitted landscaping does not include any fencing, hedges, or vegetation to preclude public or city access. There is no “walled off” effect in the area; Attachment D 78 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Sarah Krietor
August 21, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
and there are no pools, spas, or other amenities to benefit only the Bolithos. There is no appearance of privatization from any public street that discourages the public from entering the area.

In fact, the public is invited to enjoy this natural and peaceful area. Removal of the vegetation, the habitat for birds, and the denuding of the setting that is maintained for public use would do nothing to reestablish the area as public property and would be a detriment to the community. The permitted landscape encroachments are beneficial to the welfare of the community and allow public access to the area.

Finally, the appeal points to the policy’s reference to a minimum five-foot-wide “safe harbor” and notes that the permitted landscaping requires a 3-foot-wide “safe harbor.” Again, however, City staff considered this policy and all the encroachment findings. It tailored the “safe harbor” to the landscaped strip adjacent to the Bolithos’ property, and only after code enforcement inspections and city department site visits. The policy is meant as guidance, and not a hard and fast rule that, if not followed to the letter, gives rise to a “policy violation.” No Conflicts with City LCP/LUP Policy II-2.

The appeal tosses in a purported “conflict” with the City’s certified Local Coastal Plan/Land Use Plan (LCP/LUP). LUP Policy II-2, on its face, applies only to “future development, whether commercial or residential.”
Here, in contrast, we have a preexisting encroachment into a public right-of-way, and one that has been in existence without complaint for 11-12 years. We are not addressing “future development,” and that development is not “commercial or residential.” Additionally, there is no public view to the ocean that is blocked. Instead, the entire streetscape provides views to the ocean, just as it has for the past 11-12 years.

No Conflicts with the City’s Separate Tree, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Ordinance.

Lastly, the appeal throws in a one-liner claim that the grant of the encroachment permit “conflicts” with the City’s Tree, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Ordinance codified in Chapter 23.51 of the DMMC, as amended. The claim is misplaced and the appellant knows it.

The appeal, at page 11, readily concedes that this Ordinance requires Dr. Abitbol “to go through a process,” implicitly recognizing that the encroachment permit and the City’s Tree, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Ordinance are two separate processes, with different requirements; and this appeal does not satisfy any of the Ordinance requirements.

For example, Dr. Abitbol knows that a separate application, questionnaire, floor plans, and fee are required to pursue an “unreasonable obstruction” claim arising from the growth, improper maintenance, and/or installation of trees and/or vegetation. He knows that he must prove that a tree and/or vegetation is causing an unreasonable obstruction of his “preexisting” scenic views requiring “restoration” action. He knows that it is his burden to provide photographic evidence taken from the applicant’s “Primary Living Area” (PLA) during a specified time frame. He knows that a shade study and tree survey are likely needed. He knows that the City requires, as a predicate Attachment D 79 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Sarah Krietor
August 21, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
to a view blockage application, that the applicant make efforts to resolve the view dispute, including mediation. And he knows that this separate Ordinance process requires public notice, public hearings, appeal, and other procedural protections.

In short, the City’s separate Tree, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Ordinance has no application to the grant of this encroachment permit.

Appellant Claims regarding the GMA Landscaping Plans are Misguided.

The appeal asserts that the appellant or the attorneys could view the GMA landscaping plans, but could not get physical access to, or a copy of, the plans. The assertion is misguided.

The City has made it clear it cannot provide physical copies of the GMA landscape plans without permission from GMA; and we understand that neither the appellant, nor their attorneys has made such a request to GMA. The law is clear on this point.

Under California law, public agencies generally cannot provide physical or digital copies of architectural/landscaping plans to third parties without their permission. (See Gov. Code, § 65103.5.) City staff also alerted appellant or his attorneys of this legal restriction; and in any case, the City’s website discloses this restriction.

Conclusion.

For all the reasons set forth above, and in the City’s record, we respectfully ask that the City Council reject the appeal and affirm City staff’s grant of the Bolithos’ encroachment permit.

We also submit that the existing trees and vegetation within the public right-of-way contributes to the streetscape aesthetically, and do not constitute an unreasonable obstruction of any protected scenic view. There is no safety concerns. There is no endangerment of the public health and welfare.

The existing trees and vegetation are maintained in a manner that preserves view corridors and does not impede public views or access. The Bolithos will also adhere to the conditions accompanying its permit, including to maintain the trees at or just below their present height, to periodically prune to preserve canopy transparency, maintain the “safe harbor” area as required by the conditions of the permit, adhere to the other permit conditions, and ensure no interference with utilities and curb areas.

This approach preserves the established character of the streetscape while ensuring that no new or increased impact to public views or the right-of-way occurs.

The Bolithos are committed to working cooperatively with the City.

Attachment D 80 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Sarah Krietor
August 21, 2026

Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP

L A W Y E R S
On behalf of the Bolitho family, we thank you in advance for your consideration.

Very truly yours,
/s/ Mark J. Dillon
Mark J. Dillon
of
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
MJD/sjt
cc: Glynn Bolitho
Colette J. Bolitho
Attachment D 81 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment E 82 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment E 83 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment E 84 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment F 85 September 22, 2026 Item 6
Attachment F 86 September 22, 2026 Item 6
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Clem Brown, Assistant City Manager
Ashlea Houston, Associate Management Analyst
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: September 22, 2026
SUBJECT: Overview of Shores Park Master Planning Process and Recommended Concept Design for the Shores Park Master Plan
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive an update on the Shores Park master planning process, consider the recommended concept design (Attachment A) recommended to the City Council by the Shores Park Master Plan Ad-hoc Advisory Committee, and provide direction on any design refinements to be incorporated into the final Master Plan.

BACKGROUND:

In 2014, the City Council initiated the Shores Park Master Plan (Master Plan) process and selected the Schmidt Design Group (Schmidt) to lead the effort. Due to COVID-19 fiscal impacts and lease related litigation with the Winston School, the project was put on hold in 2019 until the City Council took action to restart the process in June 2025. The following agenda reports summarize the prior work completed by the City from 2014-2019, and the Council’s actions to restart the Master Plan process:
• On June 16, 2025, the City Council restarted the Shores Park master planning process: https://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/10053/06162025-Item12---Resume-Shores-Park-Master-Planning. • On September 8, 2025, the City Council reaffirmed the project’s Guiding Principles and Preferred Park Amenities, and established the Shores Park Master Plan Adhoc Advisory Committee: https://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/10109/ 08082025-Item-9-Guiding-Principles-and-Preferred-Park-Amenities. • On October 6, 2025, the City Council approved a new agreement with the Schmidt Design Group to complete the Master Plan:
https://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/10557/10262025---Item-7--- Schmidt-Design-Group-Agreement.
1 September 22, 2026 Item 7
City Council Agenda Report
Recommended Concept Design for the Shores Park Master Plan September 22, 2026

On December 8, 2025, the Shores Park Master Plan Ad-hoc Advisory Committee (Shores Committee) held its first meeting to review the prior master planning process and prepare for Schmidt’s presentation of three master plan concept designs at its next meeting.

Since December 8, Schmidt has presented the Shores Committee with multiple park configurations, culminating in a recommended concept design selected by a 5-2 vote at the Committee’s July 24, 2026, meeting. The following discussion summarizes the Shores Committee’s actions and key design revisions leading to the recommended concept design included as Attachment A.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

March 9, 2026 - Shores Committee Meeting
In close coordination with staff, Schmidt prepared three initial master plan concept designs for the March 9, Shores Committee meeting. As directed by the City Council, one design incorporated the historic Alvarado House, a second included an off-leash dog park separate from the athletic field, and a third presented a shared-use dog park and athletic field. Consistent with the Council-adopted Guiding Principles and Preferred Park Amenities (Attachment B), Schmidt incorporated all Tier 1 preferred amenities into each concept design while working within the limited park space and the requirements of the City’s lease with the on-site Winston School (Winston).

The concept designs also included two options for the Del Mar Community Building on the Shores property. The first option would modernize and expand the existing building; the second would demolish it and construct a new one.

At the meeting, the Committee reached consensus on two design considerations: 1) a new Community Building limited to 4,500 square feet; and 2) a location for the Alvarado House in the final park design. Committee discussion also emphasized ample green space, family activities, and attracting new park users. These comments shaped the revised concept design presented on June 8. The March 9 agenda report and concept designs are available on the City’s website (link below), and the March 9 meeting minutes are included as Attachment C.
https://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/12468/03092026-Shores-Park-MasterPlan-Alternatives.

June 8, 2026 - Shores Committee Meeting
On June 8, 2026, Schmidt presented an updated master plan concept design to the Committee reflecting the Committee’s March 9 feedback, subsequent Committee member briefings, and stakeholder input. Schmidt also presented two supplemental designs reflecting views shared by a small minority of the Committee members during Brown Act compliant member briefings for the entire Committee to discuss and weigh in on: one with additional upper-lot parking and one with a separate off-leash dog area in the lower terrace. The June 8 Shores Committee agenda packet is available at:
https://www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_06082026-3884. 2 September 22, 2026 Item 7
City Council Agenda Report
Recommended Concept Design for the Shores Park Master Plan September 22, 2026

After extensive discussion, the Committee voted 4-3 to recommend the additional parking design in place of the updated concept design, with a modification not studied by Schmidt to increase the Community Building’s second story by 500 square feet for a total building size of 5,000 square feet.

While the Committee agreed that additional building square footage would help offset usable space lost to a stairwell and elevator as required by a two-story building, members remained divided on the balance between parking, park amenities, and open space, which resulted in the 4-3 vote. The meeting minutes from June 8, are included as Attachment D.

July 24, 2026 - Shores Committee Meeting
Following the June 8 meeting, the City received new information about the Alvarado House and proposed multi-use sports court that materially affected the concept design selected by the Committee. Staff directed Schmidt to prepare a revised concept reflecting these necessary changes for Committee consideration (Attachment A).

When the master planning process restarted in June 2025, the Del Mar Historical Society (DMHS) requested that the City consider a location for the Alvarado House at Shores Park.

At the City Council’s direction, Schmidt incorporated the house into several concepts, including the June 8 recommendation. On June 19, 2026, DMHS formally withdrew its request to site the Alvarado House at Shores Park. The revised concept replaced the house’s footprint on the upper terrace with an open lawn for play and community events.

The June 8, Committee selected concept also included a sports court with an east-west orientation, which was needed to accommodate an additional parking drive aisle adjacent to the Community Building. Throughout the master planning process, Schmidt recommended a north-south orientation consistent with industry standards and the site’s existing basketball court.

Following the June 8 meeting, Winston raised concerns that the east-west orientation would adversely affect court usability and materially impact its lease rights. To address these concerns and maintain compliance with the lease, the revised concept restored the north-south court orientation. This update required the removal of the additional parking drive aisle adjacent to the Community Building; however, Schmidt reconfigured the remaining space to accommodate up to 19 on-site spaces adjacent to the building, three more than prior concepts provided.

After thorough consideration and discussion, the Committee voted 5-2 to approve the recommended concept design included as Attachment A. The design includes a shareduse athletic field and dog park, picnic area, games area, fitness and play area, open grass space, two-story Community Building, event plaza, and on-site parking on the upper terrace adjacent to the Community Building and Del Mar Hotel. The lower terrace is designed as a “park within a park,” with a dog-free open grass area, picnic tables, pathways, children’s play features such as a rock-climbing wall and natural play structures, and 18 on-site parking spaces that comply with the Winston lease. 3 September 22, 2026 Item 7
City Council Agenda Report
Recommended Concept Design for the Shores Park Master Plan September 22, 2026

At the meeting, the Council Liaisons to the Shores Committee requested additional feedback from the two Committee members who opposed the design to better understand their areas of concern. Both Committee members stated their support for a separate dog area rather than a shared-use design with the athletic field. One member also requested a larger play area. The other member asked for more unstructured open space and raised concerns about the shade structure extending from the Community Building, which may reduce open park area. The remaining park elements were generally supported by the full committee. The July 24 meeting minutes (which are in draft form) are included as Attachment E.

Community Input
With regard to community input throughout the process, the most contentious issue centered around whether the athletic field should be shared use or whether dogs should have a separate off-leash area. Opinions were strong on both sides. Written public communications and meeting testimony did not reflect a clear majority view; however, the Committee considered this feedback and ultimately recommended that the existing athletic field remain a shared-use design.

Later in the process, the City received additional public communications supporting more playground equipment in the Park design, including a formal playground on the upper terrace. The design the Committee recommended on July 24, includes an expanded children’s play area (two natural play structures and a climbing wall) in the lower terrace, and a game area and open grass space for unstructured play in the upper terrace.

Rough Order of Magnitude Costs
Schmidt has developed rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost estimates for the park and the two-story Community Building, as shown in the table below. These estimates are based on high-level, per-acre cost assumptions and include annual cost escalation using the California Construction Cost Index. The estimates will be refined as the project design advances.

Year Park 2 Story Community Building Total
2026 $6,000,000 $5,500,000 $11,500,000
2027 $6,400,000 $5,800,000 $12,200,000
2028 $6,800,000 $6,200,000 $13,000,000
2029 $7,200,000 $6,600,000 $13,800,000
Next Steps
Following Council direction on the recommended concept design, staff and Schmidt will meet with representatives from the Community Building users to refine the Community Building floorplan within the approved building footprint. The project architect will then develop 3-D renderings of the building so community fundraising efforts led by the Del Mar Foundation can begin. Schmidt will also develop a bird’s-eye rendering of the overall park design, including park amenity and site furnishing concepts, a conceptual plant palette, and refined construction cost estimates. These designs will be packaged and presented to the Council as the final Master Plan.
4 September 22, 2026 Item 7
City Council Agenda Report
Recommended Concept Design for the Shores Park Master Plan September 22, 2026

Because the Master Plan is a high-level guide for future park development, additional planning and technical design work must be completed before construction can begin.

After the Master Plan is complete, staff will develop a funding and phasing strategy.

Funding is expected to include a combination of grants, community donations, and future City budget allocations that will be determined by the City Council in future goal-setting workshops and subsequent budget approvals. Once funding is secured, the project will proceed with technical design, engineering drawings, environmental review, permitting, and other required design approvals.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal action or immediate fiscal impact related to this agenda item. Sufficient funds to complete the Shores Park Master Plan have been included in the approved Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-2027 Operating and Capital Budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The proposed City Council action does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it will not have a potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA.

NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS & PRIORITIES:

This item is a Tier 2 project on the City Council’s FY 2026-2027 Work Plan.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Recommended Concept Design for the Shores Park Master Plan Attachment B – Shores Park Guiding Principles and Preferred Park Amenities Attachment C – March 9, 2026 – Shores Park Meeting Minutes Attachment D – June 8, 2026 – Shores Park Meeting Minutes Attachment E – July 24, 2026 – Draft Shores Park Meeting Minutes 5 September 22, 2026 Item 7
X
X
X
X
X
X X X
X
X
X
X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X X X

SUNSET DECKS

SUNSET DECKS
9TH ST.

STRATFORD CT.

CAMINO DEL MAR
(E) PARKING +/- 12 SPACES
+140’
+144’
+xxx’
+144’
+160’
+112’
+138’
+138’ +128’
+115’
+138’

BLEACHERS

MULTI-PURPOSE SPORT
COURT

FITNESS & PLAY

PICNIC AREA
GAME
AREA
PICNIC
PLAY
AREA

OPEN GRASS
AREA

EXISTING FIELD

SHARED USE ATHLETIC FIELD AND

DOG PARK

0.86 ACRE (37,500 SF)
+157’
+116.5’
+120.5’
+124.5’
+135.5’
+119.5’
+123.5’
+145’
PARKING : 19 SPACES
(17 REGULAR + 2 VAN ADA)
PARKING : 19 SPACES
(17 REGULAR + 2 VAN ADA)
VAN
VAN
LEGEND

NEW COMMUNITY BUILDING

FLOOR PLAN BUBBLES

VIEW SHED

PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
FENCE
GATE

EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN

RETAINING WALL

MURAL WALL

SEAT WALL

WOOD BENCH

VEHICULAR CIRCULATION
SLOPES
x

SHADE AND/OR PICNIC SHELTER
APPROX. ELEVATION TYP.

Del Mar Shores Park Draft Master Plan
2026. 07. 24 Scale: 1” = 30’-0”
N 0 15 30 45
2ND FLR 1ST FLR
1ST FLR (E) PARKING +/- 3 SPACES
(E) PARKING +/- 12 SPACES
Existing Utility Pad
Approx. 4' fence for
children's safety
Natural Play
Existing Fencing around
Winston School
Existing fencing at Winston School New sliding gate Existing gate to Winston School New trash enclosure to match existing VAN +118.5'+122'
Slide
Retaining walls DUGOUT
Approx. 2-3'
DUGOUT
New fencing
Existing
wall/fence from
the neighborhood
Fire Access Mural wall

GARDEN WALK
Existing drainage
culvert
EVENT
PLAZA
VAN
Street improvements to
eliminate deep swale
NEW 2-STORY

COMMUNITY

BUILDING
Stair, typ. Stair, typ.

Stair, typ.

Renovate
existing backstop
and fencing Veh & Ped
Gate
Ped
Gate
8' ht fence Ped
Gate
8' ht fence
(E) PARKING +/- 12 SPACES
Retaining wall
Approx. 6'
Public restroom
accessible from park

GARDEN &

OPEN GRASS
Lower existing
Bougainvillea and
fence height to 4'
at top of slope.

X X X X
Textured bluff like
climbing wall
(Approx. 6') +142'
Interpretive panel featuring
the original Del Mar pier and
the natatorium.
8' ht fence

DROP-OFF &
TURN AREA Drop-off and parking
maneuver area
Shade structure extended
from the community building
Recommended Concept Design
- Shores Park Master Plan
Del Mar Shores Park Draft M
2026. 07. 24
Recommended Concept Des
Shores Park Master Plan
6 September 22, 2026 Item 7
Attachment B
Shores Park Master Plan
Guiding Principles
• Provide a beautiful and peaceful neighborhood park environment that serves the residents of Del Mar.
• Create an inclusive space that offers recreational opportunities for all ages. • Thoughtfully integrate the needs and desires of residents visiting the park with or without pets.
• Capture the dramatic views to the Pacific Ocean.
• Provide a gardenesque park setting that is environmentally and economically sustainable.
• Integrate the activities, program, circulation, and recreational needs of the Winston school.
• Create a park that reflects the rich history, unique culture, and community character of Del Mar.

Preferred Park Amenities
Required Amenities (per lease agreement with Winston School):
• Parking – minimum 18 spaces
• Full-sized multi-purpose court (basketball/volleyball/tennis etc.) • Youth sports field (baseball/softball field with multi-use options) Tier 1 Potential Amenities:
• Attractive gardens and landscaping (low water use/sustainable) • Benches for sitting, enjoying views, reading, meditating, etc. • Fully accessible for visitors with disabilities
• Furnishings such as trash and recycling receptacles, drinking fountains, bike racks, etc.
• Off-leash grassy areas for off-leash dog activities (not obvious or rigid fences) • Indoor meeting/recreational community space
• Accommodate children’s activities
• Picnic area(s)
• Restroom
• Shade
• Walking paths
7 September 22, 2026 Item 7
Attachment B
Tier 2 Potential Amenities:
• Children’s playground
• General purpose room that can be used for community programming and activities (such as exercise classes, cooking classes, meetings, arts and culture, etc.) • Outdoor fitness course
Tier 3 Potential Amenities:
• Amphitheater
• Auditorium (joint-use with Winston School)
• Community garden
• Interpretive education (such as plant identification tags, educational signage, etc.) • Bocce ball
8 September 22, 2026 Item 7

CITY OF DEL MAR

SHORES PARK MASTER PLAN AD-HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MINUTES
March 9, 2026
Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
1) CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Chair Joe Sullivan called the meeting to order at 2:30 p.m.

Members Present: Chair Joe Sullivan; Vice Chair Judd Halenza (participated via teleconference); Secretary William Holliday; Saniya Bloomer; Larry Brooks; Alessandra Franco; Lynn Gaylord; ExOfficio Kim Kanetis; Ex-Officio Thomas Neuman Council/Staff Liaisons Present: Deputy Mayor John Spelich; Councilmember Terry Gaasterland; City Manager Ashley Jones; Assistant Manager Clem Brown; Management Analyst Ashlea Houston
2) PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Non-action items): None. 3) CITY ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
4) APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 8, 2025
A motion to approve the minutes for December 8, 2025, was made by Lynn Gaylord, and seconded by Saniya Bloomer. The motion passed unanimously by all members present. 5) COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Shores Park Master Planning Process Update
City staff provided a brief overview of the Shores Park Master Planning Process and Council direction regarding Committee approach to the process.

B. Master Plan Alternatives
Schmidt Design Group’s Glenn Schmidt and Jennifer Montgomery provided a presentation to the Committee that included an overview of their background and involvement with the current and prior Park Master Planning process and provided three park design concept Options 1, 2, and 3, along with an overview of the design elements for each.

Chair Sullivan opened public oral communications and the following people spoke:
1) Jeff Barnouw
2) Dan Smiley
3) Elizabeth Prag
4) Rod Schoals
5) Mark Tendal
9 September 22, 2026 Item 7
Shores Park Master Plan Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes March 9, 2026

6) David Nakano
7) Rory Lynch
8) Martha Brooks
9) Carol Kerridge
10) Steven McDowell
11) Alain Romero
12) Janet Wilson
13) Abraham Fuentes
14) Richard Curley
15) Robin Nordhoff
16) Laura DeMarco (Donation of time from Joy Ehrenfeld) Chair Sullivan closed public oral communications.

The Committee discussed and shared their preferences on the elements in the Master Plan Alternatives presented by Schmidt Design. Some key takeaways from the Committee discussion include:
 Incorporate ample passive green spaces to be used by families and others for picnics, frisbee, throwing/kicking a ball, etc. that would not be available for use by organized sports/off-leash dogs.
 Interest in attracting new users and creating community gathering opportunities beyond the current park amenities/users.
 Limiting off-leash dogs to fenced field area only, which requires update to City municipal code. This is something that staff intends to start working on now to address public safety issues that have been raised.

There was Committee consensus to: 1) Support a new Community Building limited to 4,500 square feet as shown on Option 2 of the concepts presented by Schmidt Design; and 2) include an identified location for the Alvarado House in the final park design.

There was a formal motion by Committee Member Bloomer, seconded by Committee Member Holliday to recommend the creation of a separate off-leash dog area. The motion failed 3-3, with Committee Members Gaylord, Franco, and Brooks opposed. Committee Member Halenza, who was participating remotely and unavailable at the time of the vote, indicated later in the meeting that he would have voted no to the motion if he’d been present.

Staff indicated that the next step in the process is for staff to work with Schmidt Design to make revisions to the design alternatives presented based on feedback provided by the Committee and return to the Committee for consideration at a future meeting.

ADJOURNMENT
Chair Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 5:53 p.m.
10 September 22, 2026 Item 7

CITY OF DEL MAR

SHORES PARK MASTER PLAN AD-HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MINUTES
June 8, 2026
Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
1) CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Chair Joe Sullivan called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m.

Members Present: Chair Joe Sullivan; Vice Chair Judd Halenza; Secretary William Holliday; Saniya Bloomer; Larry D. Brooks; Alessandra Franco; Lynn Gaylord; Ex-Officio Kim Kanetis; Ex-Officio Thomas R. Neuman. Members Absent: None.

Council/Staff Liaisons Present: Councilmember Terry Gaasterland; Assistant City Manager Clem Brown; Management Analyst Ashlea Houston. Council/Staff Liaisons Absent: Deputy Mayor John Spelich and City Manager Ashley Jones
2) PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Non–action item):

Chair Sullivan opened public oral communications and the following people spoke:
1) Laura DeMarco
2) Nancy Nevin
3) Jennifer McDowell
4) Rory Lynch
5) Allan Romero
6) Tami Dokken
Chair Sullivan closed public oral communications.
3) CITY ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
4) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MARCH 9, 2026, MEETING
A motion to approve the minutes for March 9, 2026, was made by Lynn Gaylord, and was seconded by Larry Brooks. The motion passed unanimously by all members present. 5) COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ITEMS

A. Updated Draft Master Plan Alternative for Shores Park (Attachment B) Staff Liaison Clem Brown summarized recent activities related to the master planning process and introduced the Schmidt Design Group. Schmidt Design’s Glen Schmidt presented the updated draft master plan concept and summarized steps, process, and feedback received from the Committee and stakeholder meetings to inform the updated plan.

Chair Sullivan opened public oral communications and the following people spoke:
11 September 22, 2026 Item 7
Shores Park Master Plan Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes June 8, 2026

1) David Nakano
2) Don Mosier
3) Ann Feeney
4) Rick Ehrenfeld (Donation of time from Joy Ehrenfeld) 5) Camilla Rang (Donation of time from Drew Cady)
6) Elizabeth Prag
7) Laura DeMarco
8) Janet Wilson
Chair Sullivan closed public oral communications.

Chair Sullivan opened the item for Committee discussion, which focused on discussion of the supplemental design studies, parking, children’s amenities, and placement of the Alvarado House in the upper terrace.

A motion was made by Vice Chair Halenza and seconded by Member Gaylord to recommend Exhibit 4 (Additional Parking), including an additional 500 square feet added to the Community Building's second story, for a total building size of 5,000 square feet, without increasing the building footprint.

A substitute motion was made by Chair Sullivan to recommend Exhibit 3 (Draft Master Plan); and 500 square feet added to the Community Building second story for a total building size of 5,000 square feet, without increasing the building footprint. The motion did not receive a second.

A subsequent substitute motion was made by Secretary Holliday and seconded by Chair Sullivan to recommend Exhibit 3 (Draft Master Plan), with the Alvarado House relocated closer to the Community Building as shown in Exhibit 4; and 500 square feet added to the Community Building second story for a total building size of 5,000 square feet, without increasing the building footprint. The motion failed 3-4, with Vice Chair Halenza and Members Brooks, Gaylord, and Franco opposed.

The original motion from Vice Chair Halenza was then called for a vote and passed 4-3, with Chair Sullivan, Secretary Holliday, and Member Bloomer opposed.

ADJOURNMENT
Chair Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m.
12 September 22, 2026 Item 7
DRAFT

CITY OF DEL MAR

SHORES PARK MASTER PLAN AD-HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MINUTES
July 24, 2026
Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
1) CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
Chair Joe Sullivan called the meeting to order at 2:02 p.m.

Members Present: Chair Joe Sullivan; Vice Chair Judd Halenza; Secretary William Holliday; Saniya Bloomer; Larry D. Brooks; Alessandra Franco; Lynn Gaylord; Ex-Officio Kim Kanetis; ExOfficio Thomas R. Neuman. Members Absent: None.

Council/Staff Liaisons Present: Deputy Mayor John Spelich; Councilmember Terry Gaasterland; City Manager Ashley Jones; Assistant City Manager Clem Brown; Associate Management Analyst Ashlea Houston
2) PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Comments about items not on the agenda): None. 3) CITY ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
4) APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 8, 2026 (ATTACHMENT A) A motion to approve the minutes for June 8, 2026, was made by Member Brooks and seconded by Member Gaylord. The motion passed unanimously by all voting members present. 5) COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Recommended Revised Concept Design for the Shores Park Master Plan Schmidt Design Group’s Glen Schmidt presented a revised concept design for the Shores Park Master Plan and summarized key changes from the June 8 concept design. The updates included revisions to the upper terrace parking lot and sports court, a new open grass area in place of the Alvarado House, and other minor design refinements.

Chair Sullivan opened the item for Committee questions. Committee members asked Glen Schmidt to clarify the anticipated play structure material, emergency access, and building design timelines.

Chair Sullivan opened public oral communications and the following people spoke:
1) Rick Ehrenfeld (Donation of time from Joy Ehrenfeld) 2) Tami Dokken
3) David Nakano
4) Laura Cunitz
13 September 22, 2026 Item 7
Shores Park Master Plan Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes July 24, 2026

5) Jennifer McDowell
6) Steven McDowell
7) Laura DeMarco
8) Jeff McGuire
9) Janet Wilson
Chair Sullivan closed public oral communications.

Chair Sullivan opened the item for Committee discussion. All voting Committee members shared their areas of support and concern.

A motion to recommend the revised concept design for the Shores Park Master Plan (Attachment B) to the City Council was made by Member Gaylord and seconded by Member Brooks. The motion passed 5-2, with Secretary Holliday and Member Bloomer opposing.

Council Liaisons John Spelich and Terry Gaasterland asked for additional feedback to better understand the areas of concern raised by the two opposing Committee members. Both members stated support for a separate dog area rather than a shared-use athletic field.

Secretary Holliday supported more unstructured open space and raised concerns about the shade structure extending from the Community Building, which may reduce open park area.

Member Bloomer requested a larger play area in the park design. Chair Sullivan, who voted in support of the recommended concept design, stated that he also did not fully support the shared-use athletic field due to its limits on open field play. 6) ADJOURNMENT
Chair Sullivan adjourned the meeting at 3:59 p.m.
14 September 22, 2026 Item 7
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Kevin Parker, AICP, Principal Planner
Karen Brindley, Planning and Community Development Director Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: September 22, 2026
SUBJECT: Tree Removal Permit Process – Council Policy Considerations REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive an informative presentation and provide direction regarding the City's existing tree removal and replacement process outlined in Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 23.50 (Tree Ordinance); 2) Provide direction regarding tree replacement mitigation for parcels located in the High and Very High Fire Severity Zones and whether the Notice of Intent application fee should be waived for trees that have fallen or that present an imminent public safety threat; and 3) In preparation for the upcoming El Nino storms, consider an emergency 30-day amnesty as an administrative extension to the Tree Ordinance, similar to the March 16, 1998, City Council action that allowed the removal of protected trees, without tree replanting requirements through a free Notice of Intent application process.

BACKGROUND:

The City’s Tree Ordinance is contained in DMMC Chapter 23.50 (Attachment A) and originated from the goals set forth in the City’s Community Plan. It reflects the City's longstanding commitment to protecting Del Mar's community forest and preserving its contribution to the City's village atmosphere. The City has protected native trees since its incorporation in 1959, consistent with San Diego County native tree protection efforts dating back to 1885.

The City’s official Tree Ordinance was adopted in 1978 (Ord. 290) and was most recently amended by the City Council on November 17, 2025. The Tree Ordinance has strong protections for the Torrey Pine (Pinus torreyana) and the Monterey Cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa) trees, but also protects all tree species on public property, within the Central Commercial (CC) zone, the Open Space (OS) overlay zone, and any mitigation tree planted as a required condition of approval for a Tree Removal Permit (TRP) or planning entitlement. 1 September 22, 2026 Item 8
City Council Agenda Report
Tree Removal Permit Process Discussion
September 22, 2026

The Tree Ordinance provides a regulatory framework that balances private property rights, public safety, development clearance requirements, and the City's Community Plan objective of preserving its community forest.

The Tree Ordinance establishes exemptions that allow for the expedited removal of protected trees through a Notice of Intent (NOI) application; TRP review process for circumstances that do not qualify for an exemption; and provides for voluntary removal with replacement, emergency removal, and, in certain circumstances, monetary mitigation to the City’s Tree Mitigation Fund in lieu of onsite planting, all of which is discussed in more detail below.

Staff also prepared a “Residents Guide to the Del Mar Tree Ordinance” to assist property owners through the process (Attachment B). Table 1 and 2 below generally describes the number of NOI and TRP approval/denials over the past ten years:

Table-1 NOI Approval/Denials Since 2016
Year Applications Inc./Voided Denied Approved Emergency Diseased Total Trees
2016 38 2 1 35 21 4 51
2017 16 2 0 14 5 1 14
2018 17 0 0 17 1 7 21
2019 10 1 0 9 3 6 9
2020 9 0 0 9 2 0 12
2021 6 0 0 6 0 0 9
2022 6 1 0 5 1 0 6
2023 8 0 0 8 3 4 10
2024 10 3 0 7 1 2 8
2025 10 2 0 8 0 2 8
2026 12 1 0 11 0 1 14
Total 142 12 1 129 37 27 162
Table-2 TRP Approval/Denials Since 2016
Year Applications Inc./Voided Denied Approved Emergency Voluntarily Total Trees
2016 27 1 0 26 7 0 37
2017 21 0 1 20 5 1 56
2018 20 1 0 19 12 0 57
2019 21 1 1 19 5 0 45
2020 12 3 0 9 2 0 15
2021 10 2 0 8 2 0 12
2022 10 1 0 9 0 1 11
2023 10 0 0 10 1 2 14
2024 16 7 1 8 5 1 41
2025 13 7 0 6 2 1 6
2026 7 2 0 5 0 2 5
Total 167 25 3 139 41 8 299
2 September 22, 2026 Item 8
City Council Agenda Report
Tree Removal Permit Process Discussion
September 22, 2026

Over the past 10 years, the City received 142 NOI applications, one of which was denied.

Over this same period, the City received 167 TRP applications, three of which were denied.

The Tree Ordinance and tree removal process has provided a workable framework for balancing tree protection, community character, and public safety.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

Existing Tree Removal Permit Process
A TRP or a NOI is required before a protected tree is cut down, removed, destroyed, or relocated. The Planning and Community Development Director (Director) is responsible for administering the Tree Ordinance and generally acts on all TRP and NOI applications.

However, the Design Review Board (DRB) acts on TRP applications when the proposed removal is directly associated with a concurrent planning entitlement application subject to their purview. The TRP application fee is $595.

An application requires the tree’s species, size, location, proximity to structures, and the reason for the requested removal, along with a site plan, photographs, and other information determined necessary by the Director. Due to the scientific complexities of tree health and safety with respect to disease, fungus, beetles, wood rot, root health, local geology, groundwater, soil types, trimming maintenance, top heaviness and watering quantities, the applicant may be required to provide an arborist report from an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist or another qualified professional. The City may also require the City’s contract arborist to peer review an applicant’s arborist report, conduct a field inspection or provide a subsequent report when necessary based on those factors. The applicant is responsible for the pass-through cost of that review. The Fire Marshal may also conduct a site visit and provide comments or recommended conditions.

The Tree Ordinance identifies the circumstances under which a TRP must be approved.

These include trees that are dead, diseased, or injured beyond reclamation, trees that are overcrowded, trees that interfere with utilities or structures, trees that constitute a safety hazard, and trees that cannot reasonably be retained in connection with proposed improvements. Separate provisions address trees located within 30 feet of a structure where canopy reduction cannot achieve the clearances required by the Code. Section

23.50.080(C)(8) also allows a property owner to voluntarily remove a protected tree if the required replacement ratios are planted onsite.

Voluntary Removal
The voluntary removal provision gives a property owner a means of removing a protected tree that does not meet one of the condition-based removal criteria. Under this provision, the property owner agrees to replace the tree(s) onsite in accordance with the City's replacement requirements, and that obligation is secured through a covenant recorded on the property.

The replacement ratio is based on the circumference of the removed tree with larger trees requiring more replacement trees onsite.
3 September 22, 2026 Item 8
City Council Agenda Report
Tree Removal Permit Process Discussion
September 22, 2026

Emergency Removal
The Tree Ordinance also recognizes situations where immediate removal is necessary for public safety. Section 23.50.050(C) provides that no permit is required for the emergency removal of a protected tree when removal is necessary for the immediate protection of public health, safety, and welfare. The Planning and Community Development Department must be promptly notified of an emergency removal. An after-the-fact NOI is required to document the removal.

Tree Removal Exemptions and Notice of Intent
The Tree Ordinance provides several exemptions from the TRP requirement. These exemptions apply to protected trees located on private property and do not apply to trees within the public right-of-way or publicly owned land. Exemptions apply to certain smaller trees, trees within 12 feet of a primary or accessory structure, and two protected trees located within 12 feet of one another. Emergency removal, described above, is also exempt from the permit requirement. Although a TRP is not required when one of these exemptions applies, the property owner must still submit a NOI application to the Planning and Community Development Department before removing the tree. Staff is required to conduct a site visit within two business days to verify that the tree qualifies for the exemption. The NOI application fee is $337.

The NOI application process lets staff verify that a proposed removal qualifies for an exemption before the tree is removed. It also creates a record of the removal and allows staff to distinguish exempt removals from those requiring a TRP. While this verification function remains useful, the Council may wish to consider whether the application fee is appropriate in situations involving emergency conditions or with trees that have already fallen.

Tree Replacement and Mitigation
The underlying principle of the Tree Ordinance remains unchanged, but the conditions affecting Del Mar's urban forest continue to evolve. Increasing wildfire concerns, the recently expanded Fire Severity Zone designations, and changes to fuel modification requirements raise new considerations for how the City approaches tree removal, replacement, and mitigation.

If a tree is eligible for removal, staff evaluates conditions of approval requiring onsite tree replanting mitigation consistent with the Tree Ordinance. DMMC Section 23.50.090 allows the Director or DRB to require replacement trees secured by a covenant on the subject property or, when onsite replacement is not suitable, payment into the City's Tree Mitigation Fund. The replacement requirement is based on the size of the removed tree, with replacement ratios ranging from one replacement tree for each removed tree to three replacement trees for each removed tree.

In determining the appropriate mitigation, the Tree Ordinance requires the Director and DRB to consider good forestry practices, site topography, soil retention and erosion, existing trees and vegetation, potential impacts to scenic views and sunlight, and potential conflicts with public utilities, streets, and sidewalks. The Tree Ordinance also allows the City to impose conditions to protect surrounding trees during the removal process through recommendations 4 September 22, 2026 Item 8
City Council Agenda Report
Tree Removal Permit Process Discussion
September 22, 2026

from an arborist report on appropriately sized Tree Protection Zones (TPZ’s). These provisions allow replacement to be evaluated site by site rather than applying the same approach to every property. Where onsite replacement is not suitable because of site constraints, the Tree Ordinance allows payment into the Tree Mitigation Fund in lieu of planting.

The City's past practice has been to replace a removed protected tree with the same or similar species. However, DMMC Section 23.50.090 provides the Director or DRB authority to determine the species and number of replacement trees required with input from the City’s Arborist as needed. The Code therefore does not require that a replacement tree has to be the same species as the tree that was removed. That discretion allows the City to consider a different approach in areas designated in the High or Very High Fire Severity Zones, based on the tree’s location within defensible space zones, the property’s topography, or other site conditions/ locations determined critical by the City’s Fire Marshal.

Fire Safety and Future Replacement Practices
Fire safety is a critical component in the City's management of its community forest. Changes to Fire Severity Zone mapping have placed more properties in High or Very High Fire Severity Zones, and forthcoming defensible-space requirements, including potential Zone 0 requirements, may further change how vegetation is managed around structures. These changes raise a policy question regarding whether replacing a protected tree with another protected tree is the appropriate form of mitigation in these areas. One potential approach would be to provide greater flexibility for fire smart tree replacement planting. The Tree Mitigation Fund could also provide an alternative where onsite replacement is not appropriate, allowing the City to direct mitigation to locations where planting can be done safely and effectively.

This issue can be addressed through policy direction and administrative guidance rather than a comprehensive amendment to the Tree Ordinance. Section 23.50.090 already gives the Director and DRB discretion over the species and number of replacement trees and allows payment into the Tree Mitigation Fund when onsite replacement is not suitable. Council can therefore direct staff to coordinate with the City’s Fire Marshal on a fire-safe tree replanting approach for affected areas and criteria for when alternative replacement or mitigation should apply.
1998 Temporary Emergency Protected Tree Removal
The City’s community forest generally withstood the past six severe documented El Niño winter storms (1972-73; 1982-83; 1991-92; 1997-98; 2015-16; & 2023-24). At a past public hearing on March 16, 1998, in the midst of a super El Niño rainy season, the City Council approved a temporary 30-day amnesty process allowing property owners to use the NOI process for certain tree removals (Attachment C). No fees were charged. An additional 30 days were allowed to complete the removal, for a maximum of 60 days from Council approval.

The action recognized that saturated soils, high winds, and weakened trees warranted a faster process for addressing citywide hazards. During this 30-day amnesty period, the City received 19 applications, approving 17 and denying two. This action resulted in the removal of 24 mature Torrey Pine trees without any tree replacement planting. 5 September 22, 2026 Item 8
City Council Agenda Report
Tree Removal Permit Process Discussion
September 22, 2026

Council Policy Direction
Staff is seeking Council direction on the following three policy issues:
1) More Flexible Approach to Tree Replacement/Mitigation The first is whether the City should develop 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. Staff recommends that Council consider whether the existing authority in Section 23.50.090 should be used to develop a fire-safe replacement planting policy. The policy would identify appropriate lower-growing and more fire-resistant vegetation, establish when payment into the Tree Mitigation Fund is appropriate, and set criteria for evaluating replacement based on site-specific fire, topographic, and landscape conditions. 2) Consideration of NOI Fee Waiver - Public Safety Threat The second is whether the City should waive the current $337 Notice of Intent application fee when a tree has fallen or when removal is necessary because of an imminent public safety threat. Council may wish to consider whether the $337 fee should continue to apply when a property owner is responding to an emergency condition rather than requesting discretionary approval to remove a tree. A fee waiver could apply to trees that have fallen due to natural causes or trees that present an imminent and immediate threat to public safety. Staff recommends that the requirement for prompt notification and site verification remain in place so the City continues to document and confirm the circumstances of the removal through an NOI.
3) Implementation of a 30-Day Emergency Amnesty Period
Lastly, in light of the anticipated El Nino storms, whether the City should implement an emergency 30-day amnesty as an administrative extension of the Tree Ordinance, similar to the March 16, 1998 City Council action, that allowed the removal of protected trees, without tree replanting requirements through a free Notice of Intent application process.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

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

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – City’s Tree Ordinance (DMMC Section 23.50) Attachment B – A Resident’s Guide to the Del Mar Tree Ordinance Attachment C – 1998 Emergency NOI Tree Removal Approval 6 September 22, 2026 Item 8
TITLE 23 - BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
Chapter 23.50 TREES
Del Mar, California, Municipal Code Created: 2026-07-07 14:54:24 [EST] (Supp. No. 11, Update 2)

Chapter 23.50 TREES

23.50.010 Purpose.

A. The City of Del Mar Community Plan has as one of its major goals the preservation of the unique village-like atmosphere of the City of Del Mar and specifically references the preservation of natural vegetation, including tree species.

B. In the interest of the public health, safety and welfare, as well as general aesthetics of the community and the importance of the ecology of the area, the City of Del Mar finds it necessary to encourage conservation of trees and the application of management techniques to create a healthy, diverse urban forest, including but not limited to pruning, thinning, trimming, shaping, and selective planting and removal of trees and vegetation within the City of Del Mar on private as well as public property.

C. The species Torrey Pine, the species Monterey Cypress, and all species of trees located within the Central Commercial zone and the environmentally sensitive Open Space Overlay zone are of particular significance to the City, and should therefore be protected to conserve the environmental qualities of the City. (Ord. No. 683; Ord. No. 749)

23.50.020 Definitions.

For the purposes of this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this Section:

A. Accessory Structure means a portion of the main building or a detached subordinate building located on the same lot or premises which is devoted exclusively to an accessory use, and which is used exclusively by the occupants of the main building.

B. Certified Arborist shall mean "Certified Arborist" as that term is defined by the International Society of Arboriculture.

C. Permit shall mean Tree Removal Permit.

D. Primary Structure shall mean a building used for living quarters.

E. Protected Tree shall mean:

1. A tree of the species Cupressus macrocarpa (Monterey Cypress);

2. A tree of the species Pinus torreyana (Torrey Pine);

3. A tree of any species and located on property within the Central Commercial, Open Space Overlay Zones of the City, within a public right-of-way, or on public or City-owned property; or

4. Any tree planted as a result of required mitigation for the removal of another Protected Tree(s).

F. Tree shall mean any perennial plant growing on public or private property, having a self-supporting woody main stem or trunk.
(Ord. No. 749)
7 September 22, 2026 Item 8
Created: 2026-07-07 14:54:24 [EST]
(Supp. No. 11, Update 2)

23.50.030 Prohibitions, Penalties.

A. It shall be unlawful, subject to enforcement pursuant to Chapter 1.08 as a misdemeanor or infraction, for any person to plant, trim, or remove any vegetation within the public right-of-way without first having obtained an Encroachment Permit under the provisions of this Code.

B. It shall be unlawful, subject to enforcement pursuant to Chapter 1.08 as a misdemeanor or infraction, for any person to cut down, remove, destroy, or move a Protected Tree without first having obtained a Tree Removal Permit in accordance with this Chapter unless exempt as set forth in this Chapter.

C. It shall be unlawful, subject to enforcement pursuant to Chapter 1.08 as a misdemeanor or infraction, for any person to damage or deface any vegetation within the public right-of-way or on public property, or a protective structure placed around such vegetation.

D. Any person, including but not limited to the property owner and the person performing the work, who violates any provision of this Chapter or any condition imposed upon any permit issued hereunder shall remedy any damage caused by the violation. Such remediation may include, but is not limited to, the following:

1. Replacement of removed or damaged trees in accordance with Section 23.50.090 of this Chapter; and

2. Payment to the City's Tree Mitigation Fund of an amount representing the value of any removed or damaged tree, as determined using the most current International Society of Arboriculture's Guide for Plant Appraisal.
(Ord. No. 729; Ord. No. 749)

23.50.040 Removal of a Protected Tree Which Is Exempt From Permit Requirement; Notice of Intent.

A. A person desiring to cut down, remove, destroy, or move a Protected Tree that is exempt from a permit requirement pursuant to this Chapter shall file a Notice of Intent, using a form supplied by the City, with the Planning and Community Development Director two working days prior to the scheduled removal.

B. The Director or his/her representative shall, within two working days of the filing of Notice of Intent, conduct a site visit to verify that the tree(s) proposed for removal qualifies for a permit exemption. (Ord. No. 749)

23.50.050 Exemptions.

A. No permit is required by this Chapter for pruning or trimming of any tree on private property.

B. No permit is required by this Chapter to cut down, remove, destroy, or move a Protected Tree under any of the following circumstances. This exemption does not apply to trees within the public right-of-way.

1. When measured two feet above ground level, (a) the Protected Tree has a single trunk circumference of 20 inches or less and is not a replacement tree pursuant to Section 23.50.090, or (b) the Protected Tree has multi-trunks having a total circumference of 30 inches or less and is not a replacement tree pursuant to Section 23.50.090.

2. When measured two feet above ground level, the trunk of the Protected Tree is located no more than 12 feet from the exterior wall of any Primary Structure or Accessory Structure. 8 September 22, 2026 Item 8
Created: 2026-07-07 14:54:24 [EST]
(Supp. No. 11, Update 2)

3. When both trees are measured two feet above ground level, the Protected Tree is located no more than 12 feet from another Protected Tree. Only one of the Protected Trees may be removed.

C. No permit is required by this Chapter for the emergency removal of a Protected Tree for reasons of public health, safety and welfare. The Planning and Community Development Department shall be promptly notified of emergency removal.

D. No permit is required by this Chapter to remove a Protected Tree when the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal has determined by resolution that removal of the Tree is necessary to restore a scenic view and/or sunlight to a property pursuant to the provisions of DMMC Chapter 23.51. (Ord. No. 749; Ord. No. 1024, § 2, 11-17-2025)

23.50.060 Director Powers and Duties.

The Director of Planning and Community Development shall be responsible for administering and enforcing this Chapter. The Director shall have the following powers and duties:

A. Grant or deny Tree Removal Permit applications pursuant to this Chapter.

B. Determine mitigation requirements for approved Tree Removal Permits.

C. Determine whether a Protected Tree proposed for removal qualifies for a permit exemption pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter.
(Ord. No. 749)

23.50.070 Design Review Board Powers and Duties.

The Design Review Board shall be responsible for administering and enforcing this Chapter when a request for a Tree Removal Permit is a direct result of a concurrent development permit application reviewed by the Design Review Board. The Design Review Board shall have the following powers and duties:

A. Grant or deny Tree Removal Permit applications pursuant to this Chapter.

B. Determine mitigation requirements for approved Tree Removal Permits. (Ord. No. 749)

23.50.080 Processing of Permits; Standards for Permits.

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

B. Noticing. A notice of the filing of an application for a Tree Removal Permit shall be mailed by the City to persons owning property adjacent to the project site. The mailed notice of application shall advise persons of the date of action and that the application is available for public review at City Hall. 9 September 22, 2026 Item 8
Created: 2026-07-07 14:54:24 [EST]
(Supp. No. 11, Update 2)

C. Action. The Director or the Design Review Board shall approve or conditionally approve a Tree Removal Permit if the Protected Tree is:

1. Dead, diseased or injured beyond reclamation, as certified by a tree condition report from an arborist;

2. Crowded by other healthier protected trees; thinning (removal) would promote healthier growth in the trees to remain, as certified by a tree condition report from an arborist;

3. Interfering with existing utilities and/or primary structures, as certified by a report from the public utility operator or a structural engineer;

4. Causing substantial damage to a Primary or Accessory Structure or associated utilities, as certified by a structural engineer when applicable;

5. Interfering with existing improvements, and/or is a danger to the public health, safety, or welfare in the Central Commercial, Open Space Overlay Zone, or on public property or right-of-way;

6. Deemed a safety hazard in a tree condition report from a Certified Arborist. The report shall include a completed ISA-Hazard Evaluation Form or other methodology acceptable to the City of Del Mar, as well as the observations and opinions of the Arborist. The City reserves the right to retain a Certified Arborist, at the expense of the Applicant, when needed to review a hazardous tree determination;

7. Located within 30 feet of a Primary or Accessory Structure, when measured two feet above ground level, and the canopy of the tree cannot be reduced so as to:
(i) Avoid overhanging the roof of a Primary or Accessory Structure; (ii) Be at least ten feet from the canopy of any other tree; and (iii) Be at least ten feet from the chimney of any residence.

The feasibility of reducing the tree(s) canopy shall be determined by the City's Arborist and Fire Chief;

8. Voluntarily replaced in accordance with Subsection 23.50.090.A.1. The replacement tree(s) shall be indicated in a covenant on the property on which the tree(s) are located. The replacement tree(s) shall not be eligible for removal in accordance with this Code until it has attained a circumference of at least 20 inches when measured two feet above ground level; or

9. Obstructing proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal, as certified by a report from the project planner and determined by the Director of Planning and Community Development or the Design Review Board based on the following factors:
(i) Early consultation with the City;
(ii) Consideration of practical design alternatives;
(iii) Saving the Protected Tree eliminates all reasonable use of the property; or (iv) Saving the Protected Tree requires the removal of more desirable trees.

Notwithstanding the existence of Subsections 1. through 9. above, the Director or the Design Review Board may deny a Tree Removal Permit if any of the following conditions exist:

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

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

3. Reasonable alternatives to a concurrent development proposal exist which would eliminate the need to remove a Protected Tree; or
10 September 22, 2026 Item 8
Created: 2026-07-07 14:54:24 [EST]
(Supp. No. 11, Update 2)

4. The applicant has not agreed to perform the conditions of approval imposed by Section 23.050.090. (Ord. No. 729; Ord. No. 749; Ord. No. 1024, § 3, 11-17-2025)

23.50.090 Conditions on Permit.

A. The Planning and Community Development Director or Design Review Board may impose conditions on the permit to achieve the purposes of this Chapter. These conditions include without limitation one or more of the following:

1. Requirement that the permittee replace the removed tree on the property. The number and species of replacement trees required shall be determined by the Planning and Community Development Director in accordance with the Tree Mitigation Replacement Scale below and the species being removed.

Circumference of Single-Trunk
Tree To be Replaced*
Replacement Ratio
# of Replacement Trees/
# of Removed Trees
20"—60" 1/1
60"—100" 2/1
100" or Greater 3/1
Circumference of Multi-Trunk
Tree To be Replaced*
Replacement Ratio
# of Replacement Trees/
# of Removed Trees
30"—70" 1/1
70"—110" 2/1
110" or Greater 3/1
* Measured two feet above ground level

2. Payment into the City's Tree Mitigation Fund, if on-site replacement is not suitable due to site constraints such as, but not limited, to the location of existing structures and vegetation. Payment inlieu of each required replacement tree shall be equal to the estimated cost required to buy, transport, and plant a 15-gallon, 24"- or 36"-boxed tree of a species and size to be determined by the City. Any such payment is to be used to fund the purchase of additional tree(s), for planting off-site or as approved by the City Council by resolution.

3. Requirements that will preserve surrounding trees and protect those trees from damage from the tree removal.

B. The following criteria shall be considered by the Planning and Community Development Director or Design Review Board, in consultation with the City's Arborist if necessary, when determining whether or not mitigation should be required and which method should be applied.

1. Good forestry practices, i.e., the number of healthy trees that a given parcel of land will support;

2. The topography of the land and the positive effect that tree replacement could have on soil retention and erosion;
11 September 22, 2026 Item 8
Created: 2026-07-07 14:54:24 [EST]
(Supp. No. 11, Update 2)

3. The number, species, size, and location of existing trees in the area;

4. Whether the replacement tree(s) would create or continue the unreasonable obstruction, as determined in accordance with DMMC Chapter 23.51, of the scenic view and/or sunlight of a neighboring residence;

5. If a tree is to be removed from the public right-of-way, whether the replacement tree(s) would interfere with public utilities, streets, or sidewalks. (Ord. No. 729; Ord. No. 749)

23.50.100 Appeal.

The decision of the Planning and Community Development Director and the Design Review Board may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to this Code. The provisions of Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to judicial review of the City of Del Mar's decisions pursuant to this Chapter. (Ord. No. 729)

23.50.110 Expiration.

Permits will be effective ten working days after approval, unless appealed, and shall be valid for a period of 180 days, subject to a 180-day renewal period at the permittee's request. 12 September 22, 2026 Item 8
*Fee quoted as of July 1, 2026. Please check with the Planning Department for any update in fees.

A RESIDENT’S GUIDE TO THE DEL MAR TREE ORDINANCE
Why We Protect Our Trees
The City of Del Mar has what many would call, a “community,” or “urban” forest. The continued preservation of this forest is one of the major goals of the Del Mar Community Plan. The Torrey Pine and the Monterey Cypress, which are two of the most unique species in our urban forest, have gained a highly valued, and protected status in the City of Del Mar. The Torrey Pine tree is widely associated with the City of Del Mar and is an unofficial symbol of the City.

What Kind of Trees Are Protected?
Protected trees in Del Mar include the Torrey Pine (Pinus torreyana) and the Monterey Cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa). Protected trees also include all tree species located within the Central Commercial (CC) Zone and the environmentally sensitive Open Space (OS) Overlay Zone (provided the tree exceeds a certain size). Additionally, a protected tree also includes any species of tree located within the public-right-of-way, on publicly owned property, or any tree planted as a required condition of an approved of a Tree Removal Permit (TRP), regardless of size.

What Is a Tree Removal Permit?
A Tree Removal Permit (TRP) is authorization, from either the Director of Planning and Community Development, or the Design Review Board to cut down, remove, destroy, or move a Protected Tree. The Director of Planning and Community Development is the permit-issuing authority in most cases. The Design Review Board only acts with the approval of an associated development permit. Currently, the application fee for a TRP is *$595.00. The trimming or pruning of a protected tree, which is located completely on private property, does not require a TRP or City authorization. A fillable PDF TRP application, and a TRP guide are available online at the following links:

TRP Application
https://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/95/Tree-Removal-Permit-Application-PDF TRP Guide
https://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/96/Tree-Removal-Permit-Guide-PDF An application for the removal of a tree that is dead, diseased, or deemed a safety hazard must be supported by the assessment, and written report of a Certified Arborist. The Arborist’s fees for the assessment and report are at the Applicant’s expense. The following link is offered as a research tool in finding a Certified Arborist.
13 September 22, 2026 Item 8
*Fee quoted as of July 1, 2026. Please check with the Planning Department for any update in fees.

Find a Certified Arborist
https://www.isa-arbor.com/For-the-Public
If the Planning Director determines that the professional review of the City’s Arborist is necessary for a particular application, a $300.00 deposit will be required to pay for the City Arborist’s services. Any unused portion will be returned to the Applicant.

Exemptions - Notices of Intent (NOI)
There are times when the removal of a Protected Tree located on private property will be exempt from requiring a Tree Removal Permit. If the Protected Tree qualifies for one of the below listed exemptions, you must first submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) application to the Planning Department for review, and a site inspection will be conducted within 48 hours to assure that the tree qualifies for an exemption. A Notice of Intent only applies to Protected Trees located on private property. Currently, the application fee for an NOI is *$337.00. An NOI application can be found on the City’s website at the following link:
https://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/81/Notice-of-Intent-Application-PDF Section 23.50.050 of the Del Mar Municipal Code lists those exemptions as:

1. When measured two feet above ground level:
a) The Protected Tree has a single trunk circumference of 20 inches or less and is not a replacement tree pursuant to Section 23.50.090, or b) The Protected Tree has multi trunks having a total circumference of 30 inches or less and is not a replacement tree pursuant to Section 23.50.090

2. When measured two feet above ground level, the trunk of the Protected Tree is located no more than 12 feet from the exterior wall of any Primary Structure or Accessory Structure.

3. When both trees are measured two feet above ground level, the Protected Tree is located no more than 12 feet from another Protected Tree. Only one of the Protected Trees may be removed.

4. When the removal of a Protected Tree is required for the immediate protection of the public’s safety. (This refers to imminent and immediate danger only) Are There Penalties for Removing a Protected Tree Without a TRP? Yes. DMMC 23.50.030 (d) states that any person who cuts down, removes, destroys, or moves a protected tree without first obtaining a TRP, may be subject to fines and/ or imprisonment.

Additionally, the violator may have to remedy the situation by replacing the tree and / or pay an amount equal to the value of the tree that has been removed.

Under What Circumstances Can a Protected Tree be Removed? DMMC 23.50.080 lists all acceptable reasons for which a Tree Removal Permit may be approved.

In short, they include the following. Please refer to the DMMC 23.50 link for more details. https://library.municode.com/ca/del_mar/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT23BUCO_CH23.50 TR
14 September 22, 2026 Item 8
*Fee quoted as of July 1, 2026. Please check with the Planning Department for any update in fees. • The tree is dead, diseased, or severely injured beyond reclamation – requires a Certified Arborist Report.
• The tree is crowded by other healthier Protected Trees – Certified by a tree condition report from an Arborist.
• The tree is interfering with public or private utilities and the situation cannot be reasonably remedied.
• The tree has been determined to be a future safety hazard by a Certified Arborist - A tree condition report that includes an ISA Hazard Evaluation or other acceptable methodology is required.
• Required by the Planning Commission by way of the Tree, Scenic View and Sunlight process.
• The tree qualifies as a fire hazard in accordance with DMMC 23.50.080 (C)(8) • Voluntary replacement onsite which is in accordance with DMMC 23.50.090 (A)(1) - replacement ratio – a Covenant on the property is required. • The tree would obstruct proposed improvements that cannot be designed to avoid the need for the tree’s removal.

Do I Need to Replace the Tree I Remove?
It is the City’s goal to maintain a healthy, diverse a safe community / urban forest, so a replacement is generally required when a Protected Tree is removed. When approving the removal of a Protected Tree, the Director of Planning and Community Development, or Design Review Board will consider the factors associated with the species of the removed tree, the removal site, the surrounding area, and its existing vegetation, as well as other factors when determining whether mitigation measures are necessary.

There are two forms of mitigation that may be required. One is the replacement of the removed tree in accordance with DMMC 23.50.090 (A) (1), and the other is payment into the tree mitigation fund in-lieu of replacement. If planting a replacement tree is deemed infeasible by the City, then a payment equal to the cost of purchasing, transporting, and planting the required number of trees may be required. These fees are placed in to the City’s Tree Mitigation Fund and used to pay for the cost of purchasing and planting other trees elsewhere in the City.

What if my Neighbor Does Not Want me to Remove a Protected Tree? The decision of the Planning Director and Design Review Board are appealable to the City Council. If your neighbor objects to the TRP approval, they may file an appeal with the City Clerk within 10 business days of the approval date.
15 September 22, 2026 Item 8
*Fee quoted as of July 1, 2026. Please check with the Planning Department for any update in fees.

Where Can I Find the Complete Tree Ordinance?
DMMC 23.50 can be found on the City’s website at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/del_mar/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT23BUCO_CH23.50 TR_23.50.110EX
16 September 22, 2026 Item 8
17 September 22, 2026 Item 8
18 September 22, 2026 Item 8
19 September 22, 2026 Item 8
20 September 22, 2026 Item 8
21 September 22, 2026 Item 8
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Marco Camacho, Finance Director/Treasurer
Martin Boyd, Principal Engineer
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: September 22, 2026
SUBJECT: Consideration of a City Council Measure Q Financing Policy REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council review and adopt the Resolution (Attachment A) approving the proposed Measure Q Financing Policy (Exhibit A to Attachment A) as jointly recommended by the Undergrounding Program Advisory Committee (UPAC) and Finance Committee.

BACKGROUND:

On March 3, 2026, the City Council received a presentation on the Undergrounding Program Updated Long-Term Cash Flow Analysis. The Council was asked to consider advancing the design of the Utility Undergrounding Districts 2 (Beach Colony) and 25th Street, as well as phased construction of the Beach Colony. Presented as Scenario 2, this approach offered an estimated $400,000 in cost savings from reduced inflation, the ability to begin design of the entire Beach Colony/25th Street Districts immediately, a phased construction approach allowing a significant portion of the project area to be built sooner, and the opportunity to construct 25th Street as part of a larger project.

The City Council supported Scenario 2 and directed staff to additionally evaluate options to complete construction of the entire Beach Colony (2) project by 2030, including exploring financing options for Council consideration. As part of this work, the Council asked staff to update the Finance-As-You-Go modeling from 2024 (Agenda Report from November 18, 2024, Citywide Undergrounding Program Financial Analysis and Potential Funding Options), and to evaluate cash flows and phased construction for all upcoming districts to identify future opportunities for strategic and fiscally responsible financing that accelerates Undergrounding Program completion and reduce overall costs.

Additionally, the Council directed staff to work with UPAC and the Finance Committee to develop financing guidelines to frame the cash flow modeling. Under the agreed process, the UPAC Finance Subcommittee would make an initial recommendation on the guidelines, that recommendation would be presented to the UPAC and Finance Committee in a joint meeting, and the joint recommendation would come to the City Council for consideration. 1 September 22, 2026 Item 9
City Council Agenda Report
Consideration of a City Council Measure Q Financing Policy September 22, 2026

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

The UPAC Finance Subcommittee met on April 15, 2026, to draft proposed financing guidelines for staff to use in future cash flow modeling and in evaluating potential debt financing opportunities for the Undergrounding Program. The goal of the initial guidelines was to identify strategies that accelerate project completion, reduce overall program costs where feasible, and minimize the City's financial risk and exposure. Beyond framing future cash flow modeling, the guidelines were intended to assist the City Council in evaluating financing alternatives for priority Undergrounding Program projects.

On June 11, 2026, a joint meeting of the UPAC and Finance Committee was held to discuss the UPAC Finance Subcommittee’s proposed guidelines. UPAC recommended revising the guidelines to reference all projects eligible for Measure Q funding rather than only Undergrounding Program projects, making clear that the guidelines apply to every Measure Q funded project. A background section was added for context, including a reference to Resolution 2018-63 (Attachment B) regarding projects designated by the City Council for Measure Q funding.

With these revisions, both Committees voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the Measure Q Financing Guidelines, which have been converted to a Council Policy for formal adoption purposes and included with this report as Exhibit A to Attachment A.

With Council adoption of the Resolution (Attachment A) approving the City Council Measure Q Financing Policy (Exhibit A to Attachment A), staff will update the cash flow model with the latest inputs and evaluate opportunities to fund the entire Beach Colony (2) project by 2030.

Staff will also update the Finance-As-You-Go model to evaluate cash flows and phased construction for all remaining districts.

FISCAL IMPACT:

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

NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

Utility Undergrounding is listed as a Tier 1 City Council priority for Fiscal Year 2026-2027.

ATTACHMENT:

Attachment A – Resolution to Adopt the City Council Measure Q Financing Policy Exhibit A to Attachment A – Proposed Measure Q Financing Policy Attachment B – City Council Resolution 2018-63 – Designated Uses of Measure Q Funds 2 September 22, 2026 Item 9
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL
MAR, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING CITY COUNCIL POLICY 123

ESTABLISHING A MEASURE Q FINANCING POLICY
WHEREAS, Measure Q, which established a one percent (1%) transaction and use tax within the City of Del Mar, was approved by Del Mar voters during the November 2016 General Municipal Election; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Council direction in 2017 and Resolution 2018-63, Measure Q funds are designated for costs associated with the Downtown Streetscape project (completed in 2020), Undergrounding Program projects, and development and implementation of the Shores Park Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, once the Council identified uses of the funds are completed, the City Council may direct additional uses of Measure Q funds; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt a Measure Q Financing Policy to establish borrowing principles related to the use of Measure Q revenues; and WHEREAS, the Measure Q Financing Policy was reviewed and unanimously recommended by the City’s Undergrounding Program Advisory Committee and Finance Committee.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, hereby ratifies and approves City Council Policy 123 as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council Policy 123 be incorporated into the City Council Policy Book.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 22nd of September 2026. ____________________________
Tracy Martinez, Mayor
City of Del Mar
__________________________
Christina M. Cameron, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
Attachment A
3 September 22, 2026 Item 9
Resolution No. 2026-XX

ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CITY OF DEL MAR
I, SARAH KRIETOR, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution 2026-XX, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 22nd day of September 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

RECUSE:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
4 September 22, 2026 Item 9

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
123 MEASURE Q FINANCING POLICY
DATE ADOPTED:

BY RESOLUTION:

PAGES: 1 OF 1
I. PURPOSE
To establish debt borrowing principles to be used by staff when evaluating opportunities for financing Measure Q eligible projects.

II. GOAL
To look for opportunities to accelerate completion of Measure Q projects and reduce costs through financing while minimizing the City’s financial risk and exposure.

III. BACKGROUND
Pursuant to City Council direction in 2017 and adoption of Resolution 2018-63, Measure Q funds are designated for costs associated with the Downtown Streetscape project, Undergrounding Program projects, and development and implementation of the Shores Park Master Plan. Once completed, the City Council may direct additional uses of Measure Q funds. The Downtown Streetscape project was completed in 2020.

IV. BORROWING PRINCIPLES AND POLICY

1. Only Measure Q revenues will be used to pay for eligible projects per Resolution 2018-63.

2. The cashflow model should maintain a positive year-end fund balance equal to or greater than any established or potential annual debt service payment.
a. In instances where an insignificant deviation achieves Council-directed objectives, staff will identify the estimated amount and year in the cash flow model for Council approval.

3. When considering any form of debt to accelerate Measure Q project construction activities, debt collateral will be limited to only the Powerhouse Community Center asset. a. Debt capacity must be measured against the remaining capacity of the Powerhouse Community Center asset after accounting for any existing debt collateral obligations.

4. The maximum ratio of annual debt service payments to annual Measure Q revenue should not exceed 50%.

5. All eligible project costs and annual expenditure obligations shall be accounted for in the Measure Q cashflow model.

Exhibit A to Attachment A
5 September 22, 2026 Item 9
Attachment B
6 September 22, 2026 Item 9
7 September 22, 2026 Item 9
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Clem Brown, Assistant City Manager
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: September 22, 2026
SUBJECT: Declaration of a Local Emergency Due to High Volume of Sedimentation in the San Dieguito Lagoon
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:
1) Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) declaring a local emergency due to a high volume of sedimentation in the San Dieguito Lagoon;
2) Direct the City Manager to continue coordinating with, and to formally request emergency action from, Southern California Edison, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the California Coastal Commission, and other responsible agencies to maintain the San Dieguito Lagoon inlet in advance of the 2026-2027 winter storm season; and
3) Direct the City Manager to request that the United States Army Corps of Engineers amend the City’s SCOUP permit, and Southern California Edison’s related permit, to authorize dredging of up to 50,000 cubic yards per dredge event, consistent with the volume approved by every other resource agency.

BACKGROUND:

Sand replenishment projects are important strategies for mitigating sea-level rise. In 2024, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as part of a joint project with the cities of Solana Beach and Encinitas, dredged large volumes of sand from a borrow site offshore of Del Mar, placing 340,000 cubic yards on Encinitas beaches and 700,000 cubic yards on Solana Beach beaches. These historically large volumes of sand far exceeded amounts in previous replenishment projects. Those previous projects, in which less than 150,000 cubic yards of sand were placed on Solana Beach beaches did not result in significant impacts to either the environments downstream or the San Dieguito Lagoon.

Prior to the placement of sand, the City of Del Mar raised concerns about the volume of sand to be placed and potential impacts to the San Dieguito Lagoon, which resulted in representatives from the USACE and City of Solana Beach providing a presentation to 1 September 22, 2026 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
Declaration of a Local Emergency – San Dieguito Lagoon Sedimentation September 22, 2026

the City Council on September 14, 2022, and making assurances that the project included sufficient funds for post-placement monitoring and mitigation if necessary:
https://delmar.12milesout.com/video/meeting/47887716-76b5-49bd-9260- 24d3440442e5.

Once the sand was placed in 2024, the sediment quickly began to drift south, which nourished portions of Del Mar beaches but also drifted into the San Dieguito Lagoon.

This migration narrowed the Lagoon inlet, moving it southward. Sand also migrated far into the San Dieguito Lagoon; accumulations can be observed as far east in the Lagoon as the Jimmy Durante Boulevard bridge. Photographs of the Lagoon inlet’s current condition are included as Attachment B. This has created environmental impacts and unsafe conditions for the public, resulting in increased demand for lifeguard and emergency services in locations not typically used or available for recreation. These conditions were exacerbated by the recent storm surges caused by the hurricanes located just offshore of the Southern California coastline.

Since the fall of 2024, staff have extensively engaged regional, state, and federal representatives in efforts to address and resolve the large-volume sand encroachment in the Lagoon. Staff have met with SCE and its monitoring team to raise concerns about sedimentation in the Lagoon. Site visits to the Lagoon have been conducted with Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer's staff, Assemblymember Tasha Boerner and her staff, Senator Catherine Blakespear's staff, Congressman Mike Levin's staff, and Senator Adam Schiff's staff. Through Congressman Levin, staff have engaged the USACE through the Water Resources Development Act biennial process to secure federal resources to support dredging of the Lagoon. Through both the Congressman and the City's lobbyist, Townsend Public Affairs, the City has also requested data and assistance from USACE regarding sand encroachment in the Lagoon.

The USACE concluded its two-year post-construction monitoring period for the San Dieguito Lagoon at the end of April 2026. As of September 2026, neither the Army Corps nor the Lagoon Manager, Southern California Edison (SCE), has performed dredging or other mitigation to remove the accumulated sediment or restore the inlet to its pre-project condition, and the USACE has not released its post-construction monitoring reports for the San Dieguito Lagoon to the City despite multiple requests.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

Southern California Edison’s Role and Planned November 2026 Dredging SCE operates as the Lagoon Manager for the San Dieguito Lagoon. In 1992, the Coastal Commission approved SCE’s planned $100 million restoration of the San Dieguito Lagoon as a mitigation project for the harm caused to marine life by the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Every two years, SCE is required to perform dredging in the 2 September 22, 2026 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
Declaration of a Local Emergency – San Dieguito Lagoon Sedimentation September 22, 2026

Lagoon; however, these quantities cannot exceed 16,000 – 20,000 cubic yards (cy) based on permit restrictions issued by the USACE.

SCE’s regular dredging is insufficient to address the large volumes of sediment that have built up following USACE’s sand replenishment project in 2024. SCE last conducted its biennial dredging in October 2024, which did not resolve the issue of the Lagoon inlet migration or large volumes of sand accumulation.

On September 16, 2026, the City received SCE's Periodic Inlet Channel Excavation and Dredging Plan. The plan states that SCE's contractor will dredge up to 20,000 cy from the San Dieguito Lagoon inlet in October or November 2026, and attributes the sand accumulation to USACE's 2024 beach nourishment project in the City of Solana Beach.

Army Corps Monitoring and Mitigation Obligations
USACE concluded the sand placement work for its project in April 2024, which has an associated requirement to complete a two-year post-construction monitoring period that ended April 2026. The City understands the USACE has the funding and authorization needed to proceed with Lagoon mitigation; however, nearly five months following completion of the monitoring period, no mitigation plan or schedule for the San Dieguito Lagoon has been provided. The conditions in the Lagoon continue to deteriorate, creating an unsafe environment for marine life and beachgoers alike. Meanwhile, no action has been taken by USACE or SCE to address this issue.

Under the May 2025 Lagoon Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for the project, USACE committed to monitor the San Dieguito Lagoon entrance for 50 years following construction. The Plan provides that the USACE may implement mitigation in the form of dredging if monitoring shows significant closure or restriction of the Lagoon entrance and a significant increase in dredging requirements likely attributable to the project. The Plan’s baseline for the San Dieguito Lagoon is a dredging interval of roughly two years, an average of approximately 7,000 cubic yards removed per year, and an inlet that remained open about 91 percent of the time between 2002 and 2023.

The Monitoring Plan states that mitigation measures will only be implemented if monitoring indicates “clear and apparent detriment of a lagoon entrance;” and further states that “dredging for additional lagoon sedimentation will be conducted should the project result in closure or restrictions to lagoon entrances.” The environmental document (2016)1 for the project erroneously concluded that sand from the project would not extend 1 The Draft Encinitas-Solana Beach Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Integrated Feasibility Report & Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) was published in 2015. On April 26, 2016, the USACE Chief Engineer signed off on the Final EIS/EIR. The federal government authorized the project for construction in the “Water Infrastructure Improvements for the 3 September 22, 2026 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
Declaration of a Local Emergency – San Dieguito Lagoon Sedimentation September 22, 2026

into the lagoons themselves (Final EIS/EIR Appendix L). Present conditions depart sharply from that baseline.

City’s Request to the Army Corps
The Del Mar City Council adopted a Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) environmental document (State Clearinghouse #2020040181) on August 3, 2020, for the City’s request for the Sand Compatibility and Opportunistic Use Program (SCOUP) permit approval to dredge up to 50,000 cubic yards per dredge event in accordance with the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting program and project-level conditions. The SCOUP permit request was approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, State Lands Commission, and California Coastal Commission between October 2022 and April 2024.

The City’s Final MND was also submitted to USACE with the City’s permit application on December 14, 2021. However, when USACE acted on the City’s SCOUP permit in July 2024, it limited dredging to 16,000 cubic yards per dredge citing concern that the City’s program could affect the USACE’s sand placement project. In 2024, USACE also separately applied a 16,000 cubic yard limit to SCE’s permit. That restriction now prevents the City and SCE from removing sediment at the scale that current conditions require and is inconsistent with every other resource agency approval of up to 50,000 cubic yards per event for this City of Del Mar location.

The City is asking the USACE to do two things: first, take immediate steps to dredge and remove the high volume of accumulated sand its project deposited in the San Dieguito Lagoon; and second, amend the City’s SCOUP permit and SCE’s related permit, to authorize dredging of at least 50,000 cubic yards per event from the approved inlet location, with placement in the approved sand placement envelope.

Winter Storm Season and the Need for Inlet Maintenance
The unmitigated high accumulation of sand in the Lagoon in conjunction with impacts from the upcoming winter storms is anticipated to create a situation of local emergency.

Forecasters project that a strong, or “super,” El Niño is highly likely to develop between October and December 2026, bringing the potential for combined hazards of large waves, coastal erosion, heavy rainfall, and some of the highest sea levels recorded on the California coast.

An open and adequately flushing San Dieguito Lagoon inlet is essential under these conditions. The inlet carries tidal exchange and storm flows; when it is narrowed or closed, the Lagoon loses its capacity to absorb storm surge and rainfall, which raises the risk of Nation Act of 2016 for San Diego County, CA (Encinitas and Solana Beach, CA). A Notice of Decision for the FEIS/EIR was recorded on June 22, 2017.
4 September 22, 2026 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
Declaration of a Local Emergency – San Dieguito Lagoon Sedimentation September 22, 2026

flooding in the low-lying Del Mar neighborhoods that border the Lagoon. A closed inlet also causes dissolved oxygen levels in the Lagoon to fall quickly. Sustained levels below

3.0 milligrams per liter are harmful to fish and other estuarine life and can cause die-offs within days, along with stagnant water that can breed disease-carrying mosquitoes.

Authority to Declare a Local Emergency
The City lacks both the jurisdictional authority and resources to address the large volumes of sediment that endanger the San Dieguito Lagoon. Per Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter

2.52, the City Council is authorized to proclaim a local emergency when there exist conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons or property within the City. Examples of such conditions include air pollution, fire, flood, storm, epidemic, riot, drought, sudden and severe energy shortage, plant or animal infestation or disease, a Governor’s warning of an earthquake, or other conditions other than conditions resulting from a labor controversy, which conditions are or are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment and facilities of the City, and require the combined forces of other political subdivisions to combat.

For these reasons, staff recommends that the City Council declare a local emergency due to sedimentation in the San Dieguito Lagoon. Declaring a local emergency now positions the City to act, and to seek assistance from other agencies, before the winter storm season arrives. Additionally, the Resolution expressly requests that USACE provide regulatory relief by amending the City’s SCOUP permit, and SCE’s related permit, to authorize dredging of at least 50,000 cubic yards per dredge event from the approved inlet location, with placement in the approved sand placement envelope.

If the City Council adopts the Resolution, staff will transmit a copy to SCE, USACE, California Coastal Commission, County of San Diego, and the City’s state and federal legislative representatives.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this item. Declaring a local emergency may, however, enable the City to use emergency procurement procedures and to pursue state or federal cost recovery for any emergency response it undertakes. Staff would return to the City Council for approval of any City expenditure related to emergency inlet work.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

CEQA Exemption 15269(b) applies to the action as an emergency repair to publicly owned land that would protect the lagoon and prevent flooding impacts to public and private properties. No further action under CEQA is required.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Resolution 2026-XX
Attachment B – Drone Images, Dated September 11, 2026
5 September 22, 2026 Item 10

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL

MAR, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL

EMERGENCY DUE TO HIGH VOLUME SEDIMENTATION IN THE

SAN DIEGUITO LAGOON
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar recognizes the local and regional importance of the San Dieguito Lagoon; and
WHEREAS, in 1974, the Del Mar City Council established the San Dieguito Lagoon Planning Committee to prepare a plan to protect, revitalize, and manage the lagoon ecosystem to prepare for the 1976 Coastal Act; and WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar’s Community Plan, adopted in 1976, directs the City through its Environmental Management element to retain and enhance the natural benefits of the San Dieguito River Floodway and Lagoon Habitat, including by establishing a comprehensive management program for the lagoon and prohibiting the placement of sand that would close the river mouth or disturb sensitive habitat in the lagoon, and in December 1979, the City of Del Mar, together with the State Coastal Conservancy, prepared the San Dieguito Lagoon Resource Enhancement Program to restore and enhance the Lagoon; and
WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission has certified the City’s Local Coastal Program and implementing ordinances, furthering the protection of the San Dieguito Lagoon; and
WHEREAS, in 1992, the California Coastal Commission approved Southern California Edison’s planned $100 million restoration of the San Dieguito Lagoon to mitigate for the harm caused to marine life by the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station; and
WHEREAS, Southern California Edison serves as the lagoon manager for the San Dieguito Lagoon; and
WHEREAS, lagoon restoration projects boast many benefits, including the enhancement of public access to natural recreation resources and the coast, protection of cultural resources, and improvement of climate and sea-level rise resilience; and WHEREAS, Southern California Edison, as part of its restoration project and on a biennial basis, dredges 16,000 – 20,000 cubic yards of sediment from the San Dieguito Lagoon and inlet with dredging most recently completed in October 2024; and WHEREAS, Southern California Edison intends to dredge up to 20,000 cubic yards from the San Dieguito Lagoon inlet in October or November 2026, attributing the need for removal to impacts from the United States Army Corps of Engineers' Sand Replenishment Project; and
WHEREAS, beginning in December 2023, the United States Army Corps of Engineers began the initial construction phase of its San Diego County Sand 6 September 22, 2026 Item 10
Resolution No. 2026-XX

Replenishment Project (previously referred to as the Encinitas and Solana Beach Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project); and
WHEREAS, in May 2024, the United States Army Corps of Engineers completed Project construction after placing 340,000 cubic yards of sediment in Encinitas and 700,000 cubic yards of sediment in Solana Beach; and
WHEREAS, the United States Army Corps of Engineers has committed to a 50- year monitoring period to measure the effects of the sand replenishment on San Diego County lagoons, including the San Dieguito Lagoon; and
WHEREAS, specifically to the San Dieguito Lagoon, the United States Army Corps of Engineers concluded its two-year post-construction monitoring period at the end of April 2026; and
WHEREAS, the United States Army Corps of Engineers could not conduct mitigation efforts until the conclusion of that post-construction monitoring period, which has now passed; and
WHEREAS, the environmental review for the United States Army Corps of Engineers’ Project states that dredging for additional lagoon sedimentation will be conducted should the Project result in closure or restrictions to lagoon entrances; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the conclusion of the post-construction monitoring period, the United States Army Corps of Engineers has not announced a mitigation plan or schedule for the San Dieguito Lagoon as of September 2026; and WHEREAS, in July 2024, the United States Army Corps of Engineers limited dredging under the City’s Sand Compatibility and Opportunistic Use Program (SCOUP) permit, and under Southern California Edison’s related permit, to 16,000 cubic yards per dredge event, notwithstanding that every other resource agency approved up to 50,000 cubic yards per event for the City; and
WHEREAS, this dredge-volume limitation prevents the City and Southern California Edison from removing sediment from the San Dieguito Lagoon at the scale that current conditions require; and
WHEREAS, ocean currents push sediment from the replenishment projects in Solana Beach and Encinitas into the San Dieguito Lagoon; and WHEREAS, since the conclusion of the replenishment construction period in May 2024, immense quantities of sediment have encroached on the San Dieguito Lagoon and precipitated an increase in responses by the City’s Lifeguards and Beach Safety personnel; and
WHEREAS, recent hurricanes off the Southern California coastline has exacerbated the infilling of sand into the lagoon; and
WHEREAS, the San Dieguito Lagoon inlet is near closure due to sediment and large swaths of the Lagoon are impacted by the migration of sediment; and 7 September 22, 2026 Item 10
Resolution No. 2026-XX

WHEREAS, Lagoons must be reopened promptly after closure, often within days, to prevent a rapid drop in dissolved oxygen levels and consequent species die-off; and WHEREAS, forecasters project that a strong, or “super,” El Niño is highly likely to develop between October and December 2026, bringing large waves, coastal erosion, heavy rainfall, and some of the highest sea levels recorded on the California coast; and WHEREAS, an open and adequately flushing San Dieguito Lagoon inlet is necessary during the coming winter to convey tidal exchange and storm flows to reduce the risk of flooding in the low-lying Del Mar neighborhoods that border the Lagoon; and WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar lacks jurisdictional authority to perform emergency dredging to mitigate sediment encroachment from the United States Army Corps of Engineers’ Project and keep the San Dieguito Lagoon inlet open; and WHEREAS, Chapter 2.52 of the Del Mar Municipal Code empowers the City Council to proclaim a local emergency when there exist conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons or property within the City; and WHEREAS, examples of such conditions include air pollution, fire, flood, storm, epidemic, riot, drought, sudden and severe energy shortage, plant or animal infestation or disease, a Governor’s warning of an earthquake, or other conditions other than conditions resulting from a labor controversy, which conditions are or are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment and facilities of the City, and require the combined forces of other political subdivisions to combat.

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

1. The above recitals are true and correct; and

2. That the proposed action is statutorily exempt from environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, Section 21080(b)(4) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15269(c), which apply to emergency actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency; and

3. The condition of the San Dieguito Lagoon has deteriorated due to the migration of large volumes of sediment from the United States Army Corps of Engineers’ San Diego County Sand Replenishment Project; and

4. Sediment has migrated into the Lagoon as far as the Jimmy Durante Boulevard bridge and the San Dieguito Lagoon inlet has been pushed southward and narrowed by sedimentation; and

5. The closure of the San Dieguito Lagoon inlet is imminent; and

6. The biennial dredging performed by Southern California Edison is insufficient to maintain the health of the San Dieguito Lagoon and inlet; and

7. Dangerous conditions affecting marine life, beachgoers, and public and private property will persist without emergency intervention such as dredging; and 8 September 22, 2026 Item 10
Resolution No. 2026-XX

8. The approaching winter storm season, and the elevated flood risk it poses to the low-lying neighborhoods that border the Lagoon, make reopening and maintaining the San Dieguito Lagoon inlet a matter of urgency; and

9. The City continues to work with local, state, and federal agencies and elected representatives to compel an appropriate and timely response; and

10. The City Council directs the City Manager to coordinate with, and to request emergency action from, Southern California Edison, United States Army Corps of Engineers, California Coastal Commission, and other responsible agencies to maintain the San Dieguito Lagoon inlet before and during the winter storm season; and

11. The City Council requests that the United States Army Corps of Engineers take immediate steps to dredge and remove the high volume of accumulated sediment its project deposited in the San Dieguito Lagoon; and

12. The City Council requests that the United States Army Corps of Engineers provide regulatory relief by amending the City’s SCOUP permit, and Southern California Edison’s related permit, to authorize dredging of at least 50,000 cubic yards per dredge event from the approved inlet location, with placement in the approved sand placement envelope; and

13. The City Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this Resolution to Southern California Edison, United States Army Corps of Engineers, California Coastal Commission, County of San Diego, and the City’s state and federal legislative representatives; and

14. The resolution of this emergency is beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment and facilities of the City of Del Mar, and requires the combined forces of other political subdivisions to combat; and

15. During the continued existence of this Local Emergency the powers, functions, and duties of the emergency organization of this City shall be those provided by state law and by the ordinances, resolutions, and orders of this City; and

16. To the extent permitted under state law, the Local Emergency shall continue to exist until its termination is proclaimed by the City Council, which shall be done at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at the Regular Meeting held this 22nd day of September, 2026. ________________________________
Tracy Martinez, Mayor
City of Del Mar
9 September 22, 2026 Item 10
Resolution No. 2026-XX

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Christina M. Cameron, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CITY OF DEL MAR
I, SARAH KRIETOR, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2026-XX, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 22nd day of September, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

RECUSE:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_______________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
10 September 22, 2026 Item 10
Attachment B
Photographs of the San Dieguito Lagoon Inlet, dated 9/11/2026 11 September 22, 2026 Item 10
Attachment B
12 September 22, 2026 Item 10