Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda
Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
May 5, 2025 City Council Meeting
INFORMATION RECEIVED
AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA
WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)
1 Denise Galvan
From: Glenn Warren <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 2, 2025 2:06 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 6 on May 5 City Council meeting agenda
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To: Mayor Terry Gaasterland and Councilmembers Martinez, Quirk, and Spelich:
I am writing in support of Tina Thomas's application for reappointment to the Design Review Board.
I have served with Tina on the DRB for the last four years. She has been an excellent member. Tina is committed to the Community Plan and its implementation through adherence to the Design Review Ordinance and use of the Design Review Guidelines. She is always well-prepared, open-minded, and ready to contribute to discussion about the projects before the DRB. This includes asking pertinent questions, stating her opinions, and changing them when warranted.
The DRB, like other boards, is composed of members with different backgrounds and experiences. Tina has an architectural background which has enabled her to provide design and landscape perspectives on projects that have greatly assisted our board in evaluating them.
In short, Tina has been a collegial, knowledgeable, hard-working and effective member of the DRB. Del Mar is fortunate she wishes to continue on the DRB for another term. I strongly urge her reappointment.
Sincerely,
Glenn Warren
27th Street
May 5, 2025 ITEM 06
1 Denise Galvan
From: Sarah Krietor
Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2025 4:51 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Citizen-Interest-Form-Word
Attachments: DRB 552026.docx
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Red Dot for item 6. Thank you, Sarah
From: Tina Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2025 9:58 AM
To: Sarah Krietor <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Citizen-Interest-Form-Word
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Sarah,
Attached is my letter to the city council for next Monday's DRB application interviews. I am sorry to not be able to be there but hope this letter will be helpful.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Tina Thomas
May 5, 2025 ITEM 06
DRB: 5/5/2025 application letter to city council
To Del Mar City Council,
I am sorry that I am out of town and missing tonight’s city council meeting. In lieu of my being there I am writing a brief letter to convey my interest on serving on the Design Review Board for another 4 years.
I have had a positive experience over the last 4 years on DRB and believe that the board is working well together. The well-defined ordinances along with the guidelines are a great framework for the candidate and applicant to navigate the process. The guidelines also aid the board in their deliberations to better properly evaluate each project in response to the design ordinances.
Over the last 4 years, the board has proven to be thoughtful and respectful of the applicant, the process and each other’s point of view. All of this seems to have helped improve the overall experience for applicants and board members and help to dissipate unnecessary rancor and this has made me very happy to see.
My degree in architecture and my having been through the process myself provided a good perspective for me on the board. While I am not there to decide if I “like” the design, I am there to determine if the home is or is not violating an ordinance and understanding design and proportion is helpful to ensure the character of Del Mar is considered properly. My knowledge also allows me a solid understanding of the issues such as bulk and mass and to better understand how the design affects those. Del Mar views are important to all of us and, especially with the current housing law mandates ,it is imperative that the view ordinance be well understood and properly upheld.
Again, I apologize that I am unable to join the meeting but am grateful for your consideration and hope that my experience speaks for itself.
Thank you for what you all do for our city as well.
Best,
Tina Thomas
May 5, 2025 ITEM 06
1 Denise Galvan
From: Glenn Warren <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 2, 2025 2:06 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 6 on May 5 City Council meeting agenda
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To: Mayor Terry Gaasterland and Councilmembers Martinez, Quirk, and Spelich:
I am writing in support of Tina Thomas's application for reappointment to the Design Review Board.
I have served with Tina on the DRB for the last four years. She has been an excellent member. Tina is committed to the Community Plan and its implementation through adherence to the Design Review Ordinance and use of the Design Review Guidelines. She is always well-prepared, open-minded, and ready to contribute to discussion about the projects before the DRB. This includes asking pertinent questions, stating her opinions, and changing them when warranted.
The DRB, like other boards, is composed of members with different backgrounds and experiences. Tina has an architectural background which has enabled her to provide design and landscape perspectives on projects that have greatly assisted our board in evaluating them.
In short, Tina has been a collegial, knowledgeable, hard-working and effective member of the DRB. Del Mar is fortunate she wishes to continue on the DRB for another term. I strongly urge her reappointment.
Sincerely,
Glenn Warren
27th Street
May 5, 2025 ITEM 06
1 Denise Galvan
From: Jennifer Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 2, 2025 9:18 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot for City Council Agenda Item 8 (05/05/25) Initial Recommendations from the Committee Streamlining Taskforce
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk: Kindly submit the following red dot email to the City Council for the 05/05/25 meeting. Thank you.
Honorable Mayor and distinguished members of the City Council:
Regarding the proposed resolution to dissolve the Arts Advisory Committee, what would happen to the public art stations throughout the City if this resolution were to be passed? I understand significant staff time and funds were invested to secure the easements and build the stations to display the public art. Will these need to be removed or can they be allowed to remain so that we can preserve the City’s investment in the event that public art is prioritized in the future? If not, will we need to secure additional funding to have the stations removed and disposed of? Rather than eliminate the Arts committee and the investment the City put into it, can we put it on hold for the year rather than eliminate it altogether? Regarding the proposed resolution to eliminate our option and ability to include ex-officio non-voting (nonresident subject matter expert) members from all advisory committees except the Undergrounding Committee, how will Del Mar retain the value it has been receiving from our subject matter experts who have been volunteering their time and expertise on our committees? Our small community isn’t likely to have resident experts in all areas we need now and in the future. Non-resident, non-voting subject matter experts have brought tremendous value to our city through volunteering their time and expertise via the SAC and other committees. Will these experts be allowed to participate as sub-committee members? If not, what is the model for engaging subject matter experts with our community? Similar to the proposal for the TPAC, perhaps we allow one of our SAC seats to be a “preferred but not required” expert that can include a non-resident, nonvoting subject matter expert? Or, perhaps a seat can be reserved for an expert and left open in situations when we don't have a qualified candidate? Or, only recruit during certain time periods to minimize staff and council time recruiting?
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Anderson
May 5, 2025 ITEM 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Ann Feeney <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2025 11:46 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red dot for Item #8
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Councilmembers,
I am a current member of Parks and Rec, and have previously been on Sustainability Advisory Committee. I am concerned that all advisory committees across the board (other than UPAC) will only have 5 members in the future. SAC advises on several topics, including plastic ordinances, organic waste and recycling issues, healthy tree recommendations, outreach, sustainable action recommendations for residents and city facilities, and next year SAC will also advise on the Climate Action Plan update (as SAC did 10 years ago for the original CAP). That is a lot of work covered by the committee. While I was on SAC, we often had 4-5 subcommittees. It seems wiser to decide for each committee how many members would be a reasonable number to accomplish the tasks that the committee normally covers. In addition, since the committee meetings were reduced after Covid from monthly to only 4 times a year, at least 3 committees that I know of (SAC, Parks and Rec and Lagoon) have asked to have meetings at least once every 2 months, but still we meet only 4 times a year. Thus, much of the work of each committee will happen in subcommittees. I hope that City Council will reconsider reducing the size of the advisory committees across the board, and instead will evaluate the mission of each committee and decide the size of the committee on that basis.
Sincerely,
Ann Feeney
May 5, 2025 Item 8
1 Denise Galvan
From: Jennifer Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 2, 2025 9:09 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot for Agenda Item 10 (05/05/25) Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Advisory Committee Work Plans
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk, Kindly submit the following red dot email to the City Council for the 05/05/25 meeting. Thank you.
Honorable Mayor and distinguished members of the City Council:
Regarding the Sustainability Advisory Committee Work Plan Item #2 (on page 126), "Recommend guest speakers to present on pertinent issues at SAC meetings or at public workshops to be organized by SAC in conjunction with City staff...", the recommended amendment on page 133 is to "remove the language regarding scheduling guest speakers. Staff's recommendation is that the scheduling is done through the Staff Liaison, as is the practice with other committees..."
To better clarify, I suggest we instead amend it to read, "Recommend guest speakers to present on pertinent issues at SAC meetings or at public workshops to be scheduled by Staff Liaison...". to ensure that the committee retains the ability to recommend speakers and to allow the staff liaison to do the scheduling.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Anderson
May 5, 2025 ITEM 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Red Dot—May 5 Council Agenda, Items #8 & #10 May 5, 2025 Council Agenda
Item #8–Committee Streamlining Task Force Recommendations; #10–FY 2025-26 Advisory Committee Work Plans
Dear Mayor Gaasterland & Councilmembers:
While I certainly understand the City’s desire to streamline the advisory committee structure and make things more uniform, I hope you will consider the benefits of a more flexible approach which I’ve discussed below. In addition, would it not be possible to share the Task Force recommendations with the current committee members before adopting these recommendations? It doesn’t appear that committee members were informed about the proposed changes, and getting feedback and buy-in from those who will be directly impacted by these changes is always a good thing.
As a current and previous member of SAC, there is no doubt that we have gained a great deal of both needed technical knowledge and regional climate policy expertise from Dr. Nilmini Silva-Send, our current ex-officio member. Nilmini, an environmental lawyer who teaches at USD, was instrumental in SAC’s climate action planning efforts, and her participation in our work next year to update the City’s Climate Action Plan will be critical. While it may not be necessary for us to retain two ex-officio positions, retaining one position for an individual such as Nilmini, who possesses the relevant expertise and experience on climate action planning and policy, is crucial.
Regarding reducing the number of members on all advisory committees to five, with all due respect, this seems like a cookie cutter-approach that does not take each committee’s unique mission and workload into account. Given that SAC will be updating the City’s Climate Action Plan next year, reducing our number of members at this time from seven to five—in my opinion—is really not desirable. Depending on workload and timing, some committees can function just fine with five members, while others will more likely be impeded in achieving their goals by this reduction. Would it be possible for committees to maintain a standard level of five members, with the understanding that increasing that to seven members (including one ex-officio as needed) is an option? The City could allow for this if the current members agree that this increase is needed and the Council liaisons are in agreement.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best,
Dolores Davies Jamison
Del Mar
May 5, 2025 Items 8 and 10