Agenda, first session — Del Mar City Council, July 7, 2025

Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda
Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
July 7, 2025 City Council Meeting

INFORMATION RECEIVED

AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA

WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Betty Wheeler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 11:50 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot for Agenda Item #1, Proclamation Honoring Jan McMillan Attachments: Honoring Jan McMillan.pdf
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 Sarah,
I am attaching a PDF that is a Red Dot for Agenda Item #1, Proclamation Honoring Jan McMillan.

Thanks,
Betty
July 7, 2025 Item 1
Honoring Jan McMillan
July 7, 2025
Red Dot submitted by Betty Wheeler for Agenda Item #1,
Proclamation Honoring Jan McMillan for her Service to the Del Mar Community July 7, 2025 Item 1
EARLY WORK:

Jan had a colorful career before her Del Mar days began. For example, she was a stewardess for Admiral Airways. Jan recalls:
“One of these days I will probably write about my experience in a pre-women’s liberation job. At my tender age of almost 21, I dreaded running into the mechanic who followed me around at every re-fueling stop to make fun of me and do anything else he could think of to embarrass me.”
Jan also worked at Coffee Dan’s in Manhattan Beach. Her memories of that job include “accidentally tipping a plate of spaghetti and meatballs on a customer’s head….”
Reflecting on these two jobs, she has said, “I believe that no other jobs could have prepared me better for public service.” JOURNALISM:

Once in Del Mar, Jan was a regular columnist (1978-88) for the Del Mar Surfcomber and Del Mar Citizen newspapers. She has also written articles for the Sandpiper, with her byline first appearing in 1998.

July 7, 2025 Item 1
The Del Mar Spectator
1983-84
Jan, who comes from a family of newspaper
reporters, founded a monthly publication, The Del
Mar Spectator, in 1983.

It had a vibrant run for more than a year, including the most extensive coverage ever given to the Del Mar City Council, along with key issues of the day: the infamous Del Mar 88 / Birtcher-Pacific proposal for a mega-development in the Lagoon, development of North City West, beach protection and encroachments, Powerhouse Park design, and school board coverage. It also included poetry, local natural history, an art and music calendar, and perspectives on life in Del Mar.

Jan wrote in the inaugural issue:
“The intent of The Del Mar Spectator is to view, from as many angles as possible, the Del Mar community…. Contributions of news items or create work [are] welcome…. Anything scurrilous or libelous will not be accepted, for obvious reasons, but wit is a desirable and precious commodity.”
July 7, 2025 Item 1
1983:

Powerhouse Acquisition
Oceanfront property that is now part of Powerhouse Park could easily have been a Restaurant Row instead. The
Planning Commission approved a proposal for a large
restaurant, plus a 2-story parking structure across the street. A margin of 238 votes in a hotly-contested 1983 election is all that kept that from happening.

Paving Paradise? By Jan McMillan
Jan recounted the compelling story of the campaign to
acquire the Powerhouse, in an article republished in the Sandpiper in Nov. 2016. The campaign, she wrote,
“produced some of the most eloquent debate that Del Mar has known, along with some of the most vitriolic
accusations and counteraccusations…. Afterwards, the
mood turned to elation. Thanks to some farsighted people, Del Mar would have another oceanfront public park.”
This ad was signed by almost 200 residents, including the first six mayors of Del Mar.

July 7, 2025 Item 1
1986 ELECTIONS:

As John Gillies’ campaign
manager, Jan was instrumental
in key wins in Del Mar, putting
two strong environmentalists
on the council.

The voters also approved
Measure B, the initiative giving
residents a vote on large
downtown developments, and
defeated three proposals: the
Snakewall Initiative that would
have rezoned the property for a
500-room luxury hotel; FAR
increases; and salaries for
Council members.

July 7, 2025 Item 1
City Council: 1988-1996
Mayor: 1991-92 & 1994-95
On April 19, 1988, Jan McMillan,
along with Jacqueline Winterer and
Gay Hugo, were sworn in, joining
Mayor John Gillies and Deputy
Mayor Brook Eisenberg on the City
Council.

The San Diego Union’s headline
called it a “new-look” council,
perhaps referring to the fourwoman super-majority. The article reported that the swearing-in
“ushered in new era of city
politics…, one dominated by
environmentalists.”
July 7, 2025 Item 1
On Council, Jan worked to design and plant the Seacliff Preserve and replace Tot Lot, guided Powerhouse renovation plans through City Council and the Coastal Commission, and worked to maintain open space and minimize view blockage by new structures. She represented Del Mar on the Boards of SANDAG and the San Dieguito River Park JPA Board, on regional coalitions addressing critical sewer and trash issues to preserve the quality of our environment and provide affordable services, and maintained essential dialogue with other county municipalities in her role with the League of Cities.

Jan won re-election in 1992 to a second 4-year term.

July 7, 2025 Item 1
Here are just a few more examples, out of many that could be listed:
• Founding Board Member, Friends of the Del Mar Library • Recognized as a “San Dieguito River Park Key Player” in the founding of the San Diego River Park JPA.
• A Founder and founding board member of the San Dieguito River Valley Conservancy (SDRVC)
She has used her deep knowledge of Del Mar, her political experience, and her analytical and writing skills — as well as her wit and good humor — to mentor and support many of Del Mar’s leaders who have followed in her footsteps. “In the 1970s, people became quite interested in what was happening to the environment People began to look at what overbuilding was doing to our natural assets. There were a lot of groups being organized to try to preserve open space and natural river corridors.”
– Jan McMillan,
August 26, 2016 Union-Tribune, on the 30th anniversary of the SDRVC Jan’s record of community, regional and environmental work over the past 5+ decades is extraordinary.

July 7, 2025 Item 1
Painting by Mac McMillan
Perhaps most importantly, Jan has been a decades-long
activist for preserving Del Mar’s small town residential quality, consistent with our Community Plan.

A few years ago, Jan wrote:
“I just came home from a short walk, when my mind was taken over by memories of our first years in Del Mar. I remember this neighborhood with amusement—Vava and Ken Anderson’s sons along with the Bartanyi boys rolling west down Ninth Street in old tires, crossing the highway and likewise crossing Stratford without a pause to get to the bluff and the surf; observing the plastic pipe draining water into the back yard of the Victorian house on 11th; passing the empty lot which used to be a gas station where I could call for a jump start on our VW bus or take my bike tires to be filled.
“Del Mar has changed a lot since then, and I miss the smallness, the quietude, the Torrey Pines all along the Coast Highway. (I would like to bring back some more pines…)”
from a Dec. 24, 2022 email to Dwight Worden.

July 7, 2025 Item 1
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Chance Mims <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 7:37 PM
To: Planning Mail Box <[email protected]>
Subject: 483 Avenida Primavera
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 whom it may concern:

We are in support of the project at 483 Avenida Primavera that was unanimously approved by the design review board.

Thank you,
Chance and Mary Mims
555 Zuni Drive
Del Mar, CA 92014
July 7, 2025 Item 16
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Jim Sneed <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 4:19 PM
To: Sarah Krietor <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Scott <[email protected]>; Brittany Bell <[email protected]>; LISA PARNELL <[email protected]>
Subject: Parnell Appeal
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.

Can you please make these support letters a part of the record. You may already have something from the Stubbs and that one can be disregarded if so.

Thank You
Jim Sneed
Bokal & Sneed Architects
858-481-8244
July 7, 2025 Item 16
July 7, 2025 Item 16
July 7, 2025 Item 16
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Brittany Bell <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 4:52 PM
To: Sarah Krietor <[email protected]>
Cc: Jim Sneed <[email protected]>; Robert Scott <[email protected]>; LISA PARNELL <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Parnell Appeal
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.

Thank you Sarah!
I also wanted to confirm that the attached support letter is a part of the record, if you already have this, then please disregard.
--
Best,
Brittany Bell
Project Manager & Client Relations
Plaster and Patina
858-248-2007
July 7, 2025 Item 16
July 7, 2025 Item 16
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: T. Pat Stubbs <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 12:16 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Planning Mail Box; Jean Crutchfield; Terry TG. Gaasterland; John Spelich; Dan Quirk; Tracy Martinez
Subject: Red Dot – Support Letter for 483 Avenida Primavera 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.

July 3, 2025
Del Mar Design Review Board
c/o Planning & Community Development
1050 Camino del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Re: Support for Proposed Residence – 483 Avenida Primavera Honorable Mayor and City Council,
I am writing in support of the proposed new residence at 483 Avenida Primavera which was unanimously approved by the Design Review Board at their regularly scheduled March 26, 2025 meeting. I reside at 1528 Forest Way, and my fence lines along the north property line of the project site.

I have reviewed the proposed design and wish to convey that we are in complete support of it. There are no concerns regarding the architecture, materials, colors, massing, siting, or overall aesthetic.

As background, Lisa Parnell is the third owner in four years to attempt redevelopment; each prior proposal has faced significant neighborhood resistance. In contrast, this design seamlessly fits the character of our immediate surroundings. It complements existing homes and adds no negative impact in terms of bulk, scale, or neighborhood compatibility—all key objectives of Del Mar’s Design Review Ordinance.

The proposed residence aligns with Del Mar’s guidelines for harmonious materials and colors, compatible proportional relationships, and appropriate landscaping. I firmly believe it will enhance the property and realize the community’s goals of preserving scenic and aesthetic quality.

It is past time to encourage improvement of this and other parcels in the neighborhood. I hope the Board’s review supports the enhancement of our neighborhood by moving forward with this thoughtful and well-designed project.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
July 7, 2025 Item 16
2 T. Patrick Stubbs
1528 Forest Way
Del Mar, CA 92014
[email protected]
619-813-3208
July 7, 2025 Item 16
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Marti Gellens-Stubbs <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 12:18 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Planning Mail Box; Jean Crutchfield; Terry TG. Gaasterland; John Spelich; Dan Quirk; Tracy Martinez
Subject: Red Dot – Support Letter for 483 Avenida Primavera 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.

July 3, 2025
Del Mar Design Review Board
City of Del Mar
Del Mar, CA
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
I am writing to express my full support for the Board’s unanimous approval of the proposed new residence at 483 Avenida Primavera. I am a neighboring homeowner at 1528 Forest Way, with my property directly adjoining the subject parcel along the shared fence line.

Having reviewed the proposed plans, I have no concerns whatsoever. In fact, the design is both aesthetically pleasing and thoughtfully executed. It complements the character of the surrounding neighborhood and poses no reasonable impact to my property—or, in my view, to any neighboring properties.

As you may know, this property has changed ownership multiple times over the past few years, with each new owner encountering significant challenges in moving forward with improvements. Ms. Lisa Parnell, the current owner, is the third in four years. I believe the time has come to allow this project to proceed.

The proposed home is tasteful, well-integrated with its surroundings, and represents a responsible approach to residential design in Del Mar.

I respectfully urge the City Council to maintain its support of the Del Mar Design Review Boards unanimous approval and allow this project to move forward.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Marti Jo Gellens-Stubbs
1528 Forest Way
Del Mar, CA 92014

July 7, 2025 Item 16
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: David Fouquet <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 2:16 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Sarah Krietor; Julie Fouquet; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Letter to the City Council (Fouquet)
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 the Honorable Members of the Del Mar City Council 1050 Camino del Mar, CA 92014
We are David Fouquet and Julie Fouquet, owners of the home at 1540 Forest Way, a property that has been held in our family since 1959. Our home is located immediately above Ms Parnell’s property at 483 Avenida Primavera. We have appealed the Design Review Board’s March 26, 2025 approval of Ms Parnell’s application to remodel her house, and the Council was kind enough to grant a de novo hearing on our appeal of the Board’s approval of Ms Parnell’s application. You have before you the letter that we sent to the Board prior to its March 26th hearing on Ms Parnell’s application (page 29 of the May 19th staff report to the Council) and our appeal sent on April 9th (page 9). You will shortly have (or may already have) the addendum to our appeal, sent on June 30th. You also have letters opposing the Board’s approval from Joseph Nickerson, our tenant (page 20), and John and Kristen Frager who live at 505 Avenida Primavera (page 45). You also heard from Ralph Keeling and Emily Takahashi, who spoke in opposition of the Board’s approval at the Council meeting on May 19. On the other hand, you have also received letters supporting Ms Parnell’s application from T. Pat Stubbs and Marti Gellens-Stubbs at 1528 Forest Way (pages 53 and 54), and Alice Brown at 484 Avenida Primavera (page 74).

The fact that neighbors both oppose and support Ms Parnell’s application calls out for use of the City’s Citizens’ Participation Program (CPP). The CPP will give Ms Parnell “the opportunity to understand and respond to concerns raised about the project’s potential impacts on the community.” (Municipal Code §

23.08.65(A).) Further, pursuant to Municipal Code §§ 23.08.066 and .067, Ms Parnell, as the applicant, is the only person, other than the Planning Director, who can initiate the CPP. She has not done so. Further, we have had our lawyer send Ms Parnell a letter suggesting several minor changes to the proposed remodel. She has not seen fit to respond. She has modified her application in the past (page 73) and there is no reason that she can’t do so in the future.

Accordingly, we request that the Council grant our appeal and vacate the Board’s approval, and direct the Planning Director to initiate the CPP, and then, after the CPP has been completed, have the application resubmitted to the Board for its consideration.

Very truly yours,
David Fouquet and Julie Fouquet
cc: Lisa Parnell, Jim Sneed, Robert Scott
July 7, 2025 Item 16
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Alice Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 7:13 AM
To: Jean Crutchfield <[email protected]>
Subject: 483 Avenida Primavera appeal
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Honorable Mayor Gaasterland and City Council Members, I am writing to lend my support for the proposed remodel at 483 Avenida Primavera. I live directly across the street at 484 Avenida Primavera. We purchased our home in 1978 and have lived here since. I believe the applicants have shown great respect and consideration towards the neighbors and the community in their approach to the proposed development. It remains a single story, is compatible with the homes on the southside of Primavera, the design is in keeping with the coastal aesthetic, and bulk and mass is minimized. I believe they intend to live in their new home, and will be good neighbors and good members of our community.

After living for decades in Del Mar and witnessing the trend for very large and more expensive homes with basements and multiple ADUs beyond the 25% FAR, this is an extremely modest new home. Likewise I haven't found any reason to suspect there will be any future 'Spite Hedges" nor has there been any deliberate and intentional attempt to create vegetative screens prior to the design review process. Sadly, the real damaging vegetation was maliciously planted 25 years ago on another property.

I strongly hope that you will consider approving this project. It promises to be a lovely home and through collaboration and good will the end result will be enhanced ocean views and scenic vistas for all.

With respect and with many thanks,
Alice Brown
July 7, 2025 Item 16
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Katherine Sohn <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 8:48 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Joseph Potocki; Sean McNanie; Jennifer McClellan
Subject: item 17-Hedge Heights
Attachments: Hedge height letter to Council.docx
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,
Would you kindly confirm receipt of this Red Dot letter for item 17 for the upcoming City Council meeting? Thank you,
Katherine Holliday Sohn
July 7, 2025 Item 17
July 2, 2025
Agenda Item #17
Dear Del Mar City Council,
The proposal to set a maximum hedge height in Del Mar is troubling on a variety of points. To begin with, this proposal solves a problem that does not exist. There is not a widespread hedge problem existing in Del Mar and there are existing ordinances to handle view and sunlight issues should they arise.

Hedges provide wonderful privacy, noise attenuation, shade and cooling, incredible bird habitat, greenery, screening, and for some properties, protection from passing car lights. Hedges are also able to provide these benefits in narrow areas where trees or wide bushes would be problematic. Many who live in the beach area, where the lots are smaller and homes are closer together, have made beautiful spaces in their yards using hedges that help to insulate from the train, the frequent beach parking traffic, and the noises and views of close by neighbors. Given that new construction in the beach area requires homes to raise the finished floors by as much as 7 feet above existing grade due to flood zone requirements, many people count on taller hedges to provide privacy. Further, neighbors living in other areas of Del Mar also count on their hedges for many of the same points already addressed.

Hedges should not be treated as fences as the proposal recommends. This would mean that a hedge in a front yard, along the street, could only be a maximum of 3.5 feet tall. For some of us, this would completely eliminate the privacy we count on. For those with hedges on their side yard that that is adjacent to an alley or street, their hedges would also only be allowed the same

3.5 feet maximum, eliminating privacy not only of their side yards but into their backyards.

Along backyards/side yards, a 6-foot maximum hedge height would not provide the privacy we all would like, given many people are taller than 6 foot, many homes are elevated next to homes that are not and many outdoor spaces (especially in the flood zone) are elevated.

Why try to solve for a problem that does not exist? Why decrease greenery? Why decrease privacy?
We strongly encourage you not to adopt any height limitations to any hedges in Del Mar and allow the existing ordinances related to trees to handle specific situations if they are to arise.

Grandfathering existing hedges in is not a solution as trees that die would be held to the new height limitations. Further, each property should be entitled to the same rights to create privacy using hedges. There is not a hedge problem in Del Mar.

We sincerely hope the Council will carefully understand the serious consequences of setting a height limit to hedges and vote against any limitations.

July 7, 2025 Item 17
Sincerely,
Katherine and Tom Sohn 264 26th Street
Mihi and Sean McNanie 257 26th Street
Jennifer and Clint McClellan 251 26th Street
Anthony Mariani 252 26th Street
Barbara McRoskey 243 26th Street
Jenny and Joe Potocki 244 26th Street
Liz and Dave Allen 248 26th Street
Lynn Dandurand 220-222 26th Street & 228 26th Street
William Holliday 1345 Crest Road
Lucy Holliday 1345 Crest Road
Ari and Nicole Gesher 1335 Crest Road
Rosanne Holliday 1233 Crest Road
Marisa Hildebrand-Criqui 167 13th Street
Patty Schroeder 405 Carolina
July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 4:04 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Janet Wilson; Nigel Hook
Subject: City Council Meeting Item #17 - Sunshine
Attachments: 20250702_Sunlight_Protection.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please see attached letter regarding Sunshine for the upcoming City Council meeting.

July 7, 2025 Item 17
Sunlight
Chapter 23.51 of the Del Mar Municipal Code names three elements equally in its title, Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight, recognizing that each contributes meaningfully to the unique character of Del Mar and to the quality of life enjoyed by residents, property owners, and visitors.

Commonly known as the TSVS Ordinance, its stated purpose emphasizes balance and the equal consideration of all three elements.

Purpose:

23.51.010(E): The purpose of this Chapter is to acknowledge the benefits derived from Trees, Scenic Views, and plentiful Sunlight and to balance the goal of maintaining each of them when possible.

Definitions:

23.51.020(J): Primary Living Area shall mean that (single) portion of a residence from which a Scenic View is observed most often by the occupants and guests at the residence.

23.51.020(M): Scenic View shall mean a view of the ocean, lagoons, canyons, the community and its landscapes and urban forest character, or other scenic vistas, from the Primary Living Area of a residence.

23.51.020(Q): Sunlight shall mean the availability of direct or indirect Sunlight to the Primary Living Area or to the existing solar energy system of a residence.

The TSVS ordinance’s purpose is to protect the quality of life for all Del Mar residents, which should include Sunlight regardless of whether a view exists. However, the current Primary Living Area language could be interpreted to require a “Scenic View.” If this is the case, it introduces an inequity for the majority of residents: unless their living room includes a Scenic View, it will not meet the definition of a Primary Living Area. Without a Primary Living Area, residents may have no recourse to reclaim lost Sunlight.

It is illogical to limit Sunlight protection to “existing solar energy systems.” Solar System placement is customized to each home’s unique siting, and when a homeowner upgrades to include a Solar System, assuming there is no other reasonable location, they must be allowed access to Sunlight.

Finally, Sunlight should be available to living areas as well as to the Solar System, not just one or the other as the word “or” as the current definition implies:

23.51.020(Q): Sunlight shall mean the availability of direct or indirect Sunlight to the Primary Living Area or to the existing solar energy system of a residence.

Additionally, studies by the CDC and National Institutes of Health confirm that Sunlight is a vital component of physical and mental well-being. Everyday life takes place in many rooms (kitchens, dining areas, and home offices), rooms that may not have a Scenic View. Every Del Mar resident deserves access to natural light and open skies in the spaces where they live and work, especially when privacy is not at issue.

July 7, 2025 Item 17
We respectfully request that the City, while taking into account reasonable and legitimate privacy needs of neighbors, recognize that Sunlight access:
(1) does not depend on the existence of a Scenic View in a Primary Living Area, (2) should not be limited to existing Solar Systems,
(3) should apply to all daily living areas (assuming privacy is not at issue) Respectfully,
Janet Wilson & Nigel Hook
635 Hoska Dr.

Del Mar, CA 92014
Suggestions to streamline and clarify the definitions:

23.51.020(M): Scenic View
shall mean a view of the ocean, lagoons, canyons, the community and its landscapes and urban forest character, or other scenic vistas.

23.51.020(J): Primary Living Area shall mean that (single) portion of a residence a) from which a Scenic View or Sunlight is observed most often by the occupants and guests at the residence.
or
b) most often utilized by the occupants and guests at the residence.

23.51.020(Q): Sunlight shall mean the availability of direct or indirect Sunlight to a) the Primary Living Area and to the solar energy system of a residence. or
b) to frequently used rooms and to the solar energy system of a residence.

July 7, 2025 Item 17
July 3, 2025
RED DOT FOR JULY 7 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
[emailed to [email protected]]
TO: Del Mar City Council
FROM: Amy Snyder
SUBJ: Item 17, Proposed Ordinance to Establish a Maximum Height for Hedges I strongly oppose amending the City’s code and Tree regulations to limit the height of new hedges and treat them as fences. Here are my objections, in no particular order.

1. Given Del Mar's hilly topography, it’s nonsensical to assume that hedges over 6 feet tall will necessarily obstruct scenic views and or sunlight. I suspect that the vast majority of planned hedges will do no such thing, while providing significant benefits to residents.

2. Echoing the concerns of others, hedges should not be treated as fences as the proposal recommends. Doing so would mean that a hedge in a front yard, along the street, could only be a maximum of 3.5 feet tall. For some, this would completely eliminate privacy benefits. For those with hedges on side yards adjacent to alleys or streets, hedges would also only be allowed the same 3.5 feet maximum, eliminating privacy not only for side yards but backyards also.

Moreover, along backyards/side yards, a 6-foot maximum hedge height would not provide privacy for two reasons: (1) many people are taller than 6 feet, and (2) many homes are elevated next to homes that are not, and many outdoor spaces (especially in the flood zone) are elevated.

3. The City already has proven dispute resolution mechanisms to address the small number of cases where newly-planted hedges might be objectionable to neighbors.

4. As the Council considers this hedge height proposal, it is nearly impossible to determine whether Councilmembers might have personal conflicts of interest involving the potential for future hedge installation near to their own residences.

In short, I believe proposed amendment is over-broad will deprive residents from enjoying the benefits that tall hedges can provide, such as privacy, noise attenuation, shade and cooling, greenery, and protection from passing car lights.

I want to make clear that, as a property owner, I have no plans to add hedges that might fall under this amendment, so my objections are not personal, and are based solely on principle.

Respectfully submitted,
Amy Snyder
227 Stratford Park Circle, Del Mar, CA
email | [email protected]
phone | 858-598-3852)
July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: John Frager <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 4:52 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Comment — ZA25-001 / Scenic View Obstruction at 505 Avenida Primavera Attachments: Request for Restoration of Obstructed Scenic Views — 505 Avenida Primavera.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
Please accept this letter as my formal red dot comment for the July 7, 2025, City Council public hearing on proposed amendments to Municipal Code Chapters 23.50 and 23.51 (ZA25-001).

I am the owner of 505 Avenida Primavera, and my letter requests restoration of my obstructed scenic views in accordance with the current regulations. Please include my attached letter in the public record for this agenda item.

Thank you for your assistance.

Best regards,
John Frager
505 Avenida Primavera
Del Mar, CA 92014
858-248-0818
July 7, 2025 Item 17
Date: July 1, 2025
City of Del Mar
Planning and Community Development Department
1050 Camino del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Re: Request for Restoration of Obstructed Scenic Views — 505 Avenida Primavera
Dear Planning and Community Development Department,
I am writing as the owner of 505 Avenida Primavera, Del Mar, CA, to formally request the restoration of my pre-existing scenic views that have become obstructed by vegetation on neighboring properties — specifically 471 Avenida Primavera.

For many years, the scenic views from my property have been a significant part of its appeal and value.

Over time, however, a row of banana palms planted by a previous owner of 471 Avenida Primavera has grown excessively, creating what amounts to a “spite wall.” Despite the neighbors and our efforts, the current owner has not cooperated in addressing this issue.

I understand that Chapter 23.51 — “Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight” of the Del Mar Municipal Code provides a process for restoring obstructed scenic views. Under the code, “Tree” includes hedges and similar plant material that form a barrier or fence. The properties in question are well within the 300-foot distance specified in the ordinance.

I respectfully request that the City initiate the process outlined in Chapter 23.51, which may include mediation, public hearings, and appropriate restorative actions such as lacing, windowing, crown reduction, or shaping of the obstructive vegetation.

I am aware that the City Council will hold a public hearing on July 7, 2025, to consider ZA25-001, which would establish maximum allowed heights for hedges and make other clarifying updates to the Municipal Code. While I fully support these proposed amendments, I am submitting this request under the current regulations to ensure a timely resolution. I also request that this letter be included as part of the public record for this item.

I am committed to working cooperatively with the City and my neighbors to find a fair solution that respects everyone’s property rights while preserving the scenic beauty that makes Del Mar so special. I intend to attend the upcoming public hearing and may provide additional comments at that time. I will also submit this letter as a red dot comment before the meeting. Please let me know the next steps in the application process, any required forms or fees, and how I can assist in moving this forward promptly.

Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to your guidance.

Sincerely,
John Frager
Owner, 505 Avenida Primavera
Del Mar, CA 92014
July 7, 2025 Item 17
Mayor & City Councilmembers
City of Del Mar
July 7, 2025 Council Docket
RE: Item 17–Red Dot—TSVS Ordinance Amendments
Dear Mayor Gaasterland and Members of the City Council:

This letter represents the opinions of more than 60 Del Mar residents regarding the proposed Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight (TSVS) ordinance. While we have posed numerous questions and provided feedback to Matt Bator and members of the Planning Commission throughout this process, we continue to have concerns about the negative
impacts the ordinance could have on our urban forest.
20+ Year Timespan = Removal of More Trees
While we are not opposed to this more objective and streamlined view restoration process for applicants who can provide indisputable documentation depicting their view loss, we are very concerned that going from a 10 to a 20+ year timespan will result in a noticeable decrease in our tree canopy. This would also happen at a time when our trees have been under vigorous assault from beetles, fungal diseases, and mistreatment, clearly displayed by the numerous photos we have shared of diseased and shoddily pruned trees. It should also be noted that Del Mar continues to lose trees from the lot-clearing that occurs regularly when new residences are proposed, and the City has no tree replacement policies to mitigate State-mandated housing developments such as ADU’s and SB 9 projects.

In other words, many trees have been cut down over the last decade, for all the reasons we have stated, but we are not replenishing our urban forest, which undermines its health and preservation.

At the last Planning Commission meeting, commissioners were unanimous in their agreement that any trees removed by the TSVS process should be replaced. We greatly respect the fact that in their action, they chose to honor Guiding Principle #7, which states that an applicant’s right to view restoration should be balanced with the goals of our Climate Action Plan, the goals and provisions of the Design Review process and the City’s tree policies and regulations. The Planning Commission was not conflicted on this; they merely were unable to decide on the species, size and location of a replacement tree. We think applicants/tree owners should be required to replace any mature tree that is removed for view restoration. The Planning Commission or City Council (on appeal) should impose tree loss mitigation conditions just as the Planning and Community Development Director or Design Review Board may impose such conditions on permits to achieve the purposes of DMMC 23.50. If, for some reason, on-site placement is not suitable, payment into the City’s Tree Mitigation Fund should be required.

ISA Standards Should Be Required for Pruning Torrey Pines & Monterey Cypress Trees

The care and proper pruning of mature trees is also an important factor in preserving our urban forest. We are concerned that with tree owners being overtly incentivized to bypass the TSVS process due to its higher costs, they will be under no obligation to follow International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) standards for trimming mature trees, especially Torrey Pines and Monterey Cypress. The City does not currently regulate the trimming of trees, including protected trees, on private property and we are concerned that giving property owners more responsibility for public trees in front of their homes without giving them the guidance and oversight they need for proper maintenance may lead to unintended consequences. Once the responsibility for maintenance passes to the tree owner for public trees in front of their homes, it is not clear if trees will still be considered “protected” and if the Encroachment Permit process will still be required for tree trimming.

Our recent Public Records Act request revealed that there are approximately 1400 public trees (excluding trees in medians), many of which are in the public right-of-way in front of homes. We hope the City will make the effort to July 7, 2025 Item 17
ensure that all tree trimming in the public right-of-way, where the City can exercise greater control—meets the same standards as trees in our downtown.

To encourage the proper pruning of our protected trees, both on public and private property, we would recommend the following clause be added to the appropriate ordinance(s):

“Any business, which performs structural pruning or tree removal of protected trees in the City, must be in possession of a Del Mar business license, and must have an ISA Certified Arborist on staff, in a supervisory position for the accomplishment of such work.”

Don’t Target Tree Species for Removal Prior to Comprehensive Tree Policy Review Given the evolving nature of fire management practices and the need to preserve mature trees that sequester large amounts of carbon, we think it’s unwise to include provisions in the ordinance that could target a tree species for removal per 23.51.070.(L), based on an out-of-date undesirable tree list. We urge the Council to suspend this reference until an up-to-date list of encouraged and discouraged trees can be developed.

Thank you for your consideration of these important factors as you move forward in finalizing the TSVS ordinance.

Best Regards,
Richard & Dolores Davies Jamison
Crest Road
Amy Isackson
Pine Needles Drive
Beth Levine
Crest Road
Ann Feeney & Don Mosier
Rimini Road
John & Mary Giebink
Stratford Court
Mary Friestedt
Bellaire Street
Cathy & Shige Iwane
Pine Needles Drive
Gloria Sandvik & Harold Feder
Crest Road
Joan & Craig Brown
Crest Road
Rosanne Holliday
Crest Road
Palmer & Susan Taylor
Via Alta
Carol Kerridge
El Amigo Road
Dwight Worden
Seaview Avenue
Ron Prater
Zapo Street
Carol Isackson
Pine Needles Drive
Ron & Susan Taylor
Crest Road
John Goodkind
Forest Way
Anne Farrell
Via Alta
Linda & Frank Chisari
Crest Road
July 7, 2025 Item 17
Valerie Dufort & Sudeepto Roy
Klish Avenue
Pat Bone
Culebra Street
Sheila & Michael Sharpe
15th Street
Art Olson & Shirley King
Avenida Primavera
Judy & Marc Schuckit
Kalamath Street
Phi & Eric Gerber
Pine Needles Drive
Penny & Buck Abell
Serpentine Drive
Katherine Sohn
26th Street
Scott & Lisa Renner
Via Alta
Tanya Schneiderman
Hoska Drive
Ari & Nicole Gesher
Crest Road
Wendy & John Ross
Klish Avenue
Sandy & Bram Dijkstra
Rimini Road
Mara Bickett
Van Dyke Avenue
Catherine & Peter Cramton
Highland Avenue
Doug & Janette Shelton
Rimini Road
Alice Brown
Avenida Primavera
Lucy Taylor
15th Street
John & Gail Graybill
15th Street
Jason Dempsey
Crest Road
July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Anne Farrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 4, 2025 9:31 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Letter, Item 17: TSVS Ordinance Amendments / July 7, 2025 Council Docket 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: City of Del Mar
Mayor Terry Gaasterland, Deputy Mayor Tracy Martinez, Councilmember Dan Quirk, and Councilmember John Spelich
From: Anne Farrell, Via Alta, Del Mar
Dear Mayor Gaasterland and Members of the City Council:

I am writing with my strong concerns that the proposed TSVS Ordinance Amendments will negatively impact our urban forest, which is one of the most distinctive natural features of our City – one that is rapidly disappearing as so many properties are being redeveloped into larger homes that require tree removal. We owe it to future generations to do all we can to preserve and nurture our trees. I joined with a large group of Del Mar residents who have written to you regarding this matter, but I also want to reiterate my own strong personal feelings.

I disagree with moving from a 10-year to a 20+ year timespan. There is no question that this would result in a loss of our tree canopy. Many of our beautiful trees have been suffering from bark beetles, fungus, and most of all from mistreatment or poor trimming practices. And we lose so many trees when large new houses are built – I saw this myself when what was actually almost a small forest next-door to me at 1411 Via Alta was completely removed on 2/3 of a large lot as it was being prepared for the new house being built there. Along with those removals came removal of a large tree canopy and a lot of privacy. Furthermore, with so many ADUs and SB9 projects going up, there are also no tree replacement requirements, further reducing our tree canopy and diminishing our urban forest.

I concur with the Planning Commission that project applicants/tree owners should be required to replace any mature tree that is removed for view restoration. If, for some reason, on-site placement is not suitable, payment into the City’s Tree Mitigation Fund should be required.

I am very concerned about the improper pruning of Torrey Pines and Monterey Cypress trees. I have seen in my own neighborhood how botched pruning or lack of pruning can really damage our mature protected trees and even lead to disease like bark beetle. Owners should be obliged to follow International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) standards for trimming mature trees, especially Torrey Pines and Monterey Cypress.

As you know, the City does not currently regulate the trimming of trees on private property, including protected trees, and I am very concerned that giving property owners more responsibility for public trees in front of their homes without giving them the guidance and oversight they need for proper maintenance may July 7, 2025 Item 17
2 lead to unintended negative consequences. As was reported to you by Dolores and Richard Jamison, in Del Mar there are approximately 1,400 public trees (excluding trees in medians), many in the public right-ofway in front of homes. The City must make every effort to ensure that all tree trimming in the public rightof-way meets the highest standards.

As has been suggested, I completely agree that to encourage the proper pruning of our protected trees, both on public and private property, the following clause be added to the appropriate ordinance(s):
“Any business, which performs structural pruning or tree removal of protected trees in the City, must be in possession of a Del Mar business license, and must have an ISA Certified Arborist on staff, in a supervisory position for the accomplishment of such work.” Finally, I ask that you don’t target tree species for removal before there is a comprehensive Tree Policy review. Our City’s tree canopy is quickly disappearing, and a policy like targeting “undesirable” trees is premature until a more thorough study is conducted.

As you move forward in finalizing the TSVS ordinance, please take these issues into your consideration. The decisions you make now will have impact on generations of Del Mar residents for decades into the future.

Sincerely,
Anne Farrell
July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Brad Walters <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2025 5:05 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 17 red dot
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 Council,
I’m writing in support of hedge height limits. Why: High street hedges can create a real pedestrian safety hazard.

To name one example, there’s a high hedge at 4th and Stratford, which I understand would be “grandfathered in” no matter what, that makes it nearly impossible for cars coming down 4th to see walkers approaching from the right to cross the intersection. Drivers often run this stop sign to turn right without even slowing down.

A similar situation exists along some of our windier streets without sidewalks, where high hedges create limited driver sightlines around corners — putting pedestrians in danger whenever there are no sidewalks for them to be on.

I wish we would require current street-side hedges to be trimmed wherever they create such hazards, but let’s at least avoid this phenomenon going forward.

Additionally, I do not support City funds being used to trim City trees in response to a view complaint, even in a “50/50” way. It simply feels wrong to me to allocate public resources in such a manner, especially since trees also provide plenty of public benefits.

Best,
Brad Walters
July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Joseph Potocki <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 9:41 AM
To: Terry Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; John Spelich; Dan Quirk; City Clerk Mail Box Subject: City Council 7/7/25 agenda item # 17- TSVS proposed amendment re hedges- Red Dot.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable Mayor and Council Members
I am a long time owner/ full-time resident of a home in the beach colony area of Del Mar. My wife and I strongly oppose the inclusion of the limitations/restrictions relating to hedges. We urge you to reject including this limitation/restriction as advanced in the proposed ordinance.

There has been no widespread issue or concern regarding hedges raised in the past in Del Mar. Hedges are aesthetically pleasing, good for the environment, provide privacy, create a windbreak, are decorative and enhance our community. Hedges also help preserve the community character that the City has strived so hard to maintain.

These are some of the reasons why so many properties throughout our community utilize hedges. There is no valid legitimate reason to now impose this proposed restriction relating to hedges.

Historically, the DRB has often required property owners to utilize hedges for some of the reasons noted above as well as to preserve/maintain the community character when they have applied for new construction for plans to be approved. As part of this process, landscape plans would need to be submitted, and if approved, homeowners were required to comply with those plans which included plantings such as hedges. Property owners relied upon this approval in planting and nurturing various plants that create hedges. To now ask owners to change what they were previously required to comply with is completely unfair and inappropriate. Grandfathering in the existing plantings does not solve the problem either because plants will ultimately need to be replaced. Many owners relied upon what was approved and/or directed in designing their homes. We were one of them.

This proposed limitation also creates the potential to significantly decrease property values . Another possible impact of this proposed limitation is a decrease in harmony in our community because there may be more neighbor disputes due to the loss of privacy.

There are studies that have shown that hedges, when maintained, can also reduce exposure to fire by blocking wind and radiant heat, intercepting embers and slowing the spread of fire once one starts. Such benefits can be further enhanced if certain types of fire resistive plants are used. I further note that any purported concern of a fire hazard due to hedges in the beach colony area is a fallacy and not supported by data. Cal Fire, through the State Fire Marshall, has recently determined and identified that the Beach Colony area of Del Mar as having no Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Further the proposed modification to section 30.86.090 could prove detrimental to minimizing fire risk. Homeowners faced with privacy concerns due to the proposed limitation and height of the hedges may move the hedges or plant trees closer to their homes. Additionally, if fire is a consideration motivating this item there are other trees and shrubs on city property and trees on private property would be in a position to be an equal participants in such a concern. Although the proposed restrictions should be rejected and not adopted for the entire community, if adopted it should be limited only to areas in Del mar deemed to be in a high risk Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

July 7, 2025 Item 17
2 The proposed limitation/restriction will also destroy, rather than preserve, the community character of coastal Del Mar. Imposing this proposed restriction/limitation will move or town to looking more like some other coastal towns like Manhattan Beach or Newport Beach.

We also think that it is important to note that less than half of the twenty-seven jurisdictions surveyed by staƯ imposed any ordinance restricting or limiting hedges. There is no good reason to do so here in Del Mar.

After carefully vetting, receiving input and considering the data, the Del Mar Planning Commission rejected the proposal limiting/restricting hedges and has formally recommended against doing so. As stated in the staƯ report:
“ Finally, the Planning Commission made a formal recommendation to the City Council that staƯ’s proposed amendments to DMMC Chapters 30.04 and 30.86 that would limit the maximum allowed height of “hedges” within required setback (“yard”) areas of a lot should not be considered or adopted by the City Council. Discussion leading to the Commission’s recommendation included concerns that, even with a “grandfathering” clause, limiting hedges to the same height as fences would have a negative impact on Del Mar’s existing community character.”( highlighting added).

We urge the collective counsel to unanimously reject and not adopt this particular proposed amendment relating to hedges. Thank you for your time, service in consideration of our position.

Respectfully,
JOSEPH P. POTOCKI

9665 Chesapeake Dr., Suite 305, San Diego, CA 92123
T: (858) 222-8236 EXT. 104
cbtp-law.com
July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 11:05 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Terry Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk; John Spelich; Matt Bator; Ashley Jones; Planning Mail Box
Subject: Item 17, July 7, 2025 City Council meeting.

July 6, 2025
To: Del Mar City Council
CC: Planning Commission; Matt Bator; Ashley Jones
Dear Mayor Gaasterland and other distinguished members of the City Council, Thank you to the Planning Committee and the City Staff, especially Matt Bator, for their hard, thoughtful work on changes to the TSVS ordinance and Hedge Ordinance and thank you for your attention to these matters.

I will be sending you comments to the proposed ordinances in two emails to cover three topics. I apologize for the length of the emails. I did bring these three points up early in the process to the Planning Commission but could not attend the meetings and they had so many areas to discuss, I am not sure there was time to focus on them.

My comments, which focus on three areas, should not be taken as criticism of the effort that has gone into the changes, I applaud the changes to these ordinances overall. I have comments on three specific areas: (1) the blanket exemption for existing hedges in the proposed new Hedge ordinance, (2) The need to apply the sharing of costs to maintain views found to have been unreasonably obstructed in the past, and (3) Considering eliminating the indemnification provision requiring successful applicants to indemnify the City for the cost of defending against an appeal.

This email focuses on the Hedge Height Limitation Exemption:

In sum:

July 7, 2025 Item 17
2 The Blanket Exemption from maximum height restrictions for existing Hedges is too Broad: In sum, the changes to the Hedge Ordinance should not give a blanket exemption to all existing “over-height” hedges because this would essentially act as a perpetual City license for hedges to remain indefinitely that create an unreasonable fire risk to neighbors; In light of the reclassification of portions of the City into the High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ), we need a more tailored exemption provision that deals with existing over-height hedges, not as “one-size fits all” and evaluates them the context of the fire risks we face.

In Detail:

The Blanket Exemption for existing Hedges is too Broad
The proposed changes to the fence/hedge ordinance are a welcome change that recognizes that hedges can be so dense as to functionally serve as fences. It accurately focuses on the effect of a dense vegetation barrier: “Hedge shall mean generally dense vegetation so aligned as to form a physical barrier similar to a fence.”
The Staff Report states in part:
“During the December 2, 2024, Council meeting, some of the Councilmembers raised concerns that there are many existing tall hedges that exceed the maximum height allowed for fences and retaining walls in the City. To address this issue and concern, proposed language has been added to DMMC Section 30.86.090 that would exempt hedges greater than a certain height in existence on the date the Ordinance becomes effective. Those existing over-height hedges would be allowed to remain.”
The proposed new ordinance states in part:
“The maximum hedge heights permitted under this Section shall not apply to hedges that existed on a property as of __________, 2025, and that were at least one or more feet taller than the maximum hedge heights permitted under this Section.” This “one size fits all” blanket exemption for existing dense vegetation barriers is counter to any prudent fire resistance strategy and ignores the fact that some existing high vegetation barriers in the City pose a significant fire risk. That risk needs to be significantly lowered, not perpetuated.

First, as a threshold matter, given that Del Mar’s landscaping is mostly established, the proposed change to the fence/hedge ordinance addressing only post-ordinance changes would have little effect if all existing hedges are just given a blanket exemption. The real effect (an unintended consequence) will be that the existing, no-matter-how-high-and dense- hedge exemption will be giving a signal of approval, and huge hedges that create an unreasonable fire hazard will be allowed to continue in perpetuity.

Second, dense vegetation barriers in Del Mar should not be treated as “one size fits all” because some do not create an unreasonable fire hazard risk to neighbors and some do. For example, high hedges of homes facing Del Mar Heights road do not create an inordinate fire risk because they face a wide street where first responders can enter quickly and additional privacy is needed due to the location. Another July 7, 2025 Item 17
3 example: a very high hedge at a 9thth street historical home also is not very proximal to neighbors and the additional privacy does not detrimentally affect neighbors.

In stark contrast, the 20-30 ft high, virtually solid barrier of Eucalyptus trees, which trees are known to act as fire accelerators and as ember propellers in the event of a fire, that have been allowed to proliferate at 110 Stratford Court (owned by Torrey Pacific Corporation) pose a clear and present danger to the 126 families in Del Mar Woods, the over 90 unit homes at Los Arboles and other proximal homes.

Add to that, the limited ingress for first responders and egress for homeowner escape. I own a unit at DMW where my family, friends and renters stay. Under no circumstances should this “hedge” and others like it, be exempted from the height restriction ordinance. There must be a provision adopted that allows the City to deal with the fire hazard created by walls of trees and hedges in parts of the City. The lesson of other parts of the State, country and world is that wind, dense Eucalyptus trees and a spark mean devastation.

Proposal: In sum, the City Council should ask the Staff, under direction of the Planning Commission to draft a separate provision or set of provisions that more fully address exemptions from the newly proposed Hedge ordinance:
 Rather than any blanket exemption, there should be a procedure whereby owners of aboveheight hedges should be required to apply to the City for an exemption, or where neighbors can challenge, or the City can decline to apply the exemption, that sets forth the criteria for granting or denying it . Criteria should consider:
 The fire hazard posed by the existing hedge
o Height, density and type of vegetation barrier
o “Laddering” effect of owner’s adjacent lower vegetation o Nearness to homes/wood fences, etc.
o The Fire Hazard Severity Risk of the area of the Hedge and surrounding neighborhood o Ease of access to the site of the Hedge by first responders o The Hedge owner need for extraordinary privacy
 If the city finds the Hedge does not properly qualify for an exemption, the owner can be given additional time to lower the hedge or significantly lace it so that there is adequate feet of spacing between portions. Where the Hedge is a row of dense trees and foliage, much greater spacing of trees may be an option, depending on the type of tree.

We must realize that the calamitous fires in the cities of Paradise, Altadena, Pacific Palisades, and Malibu, together with reclassification of many portions of Del Mar as high fire hazard severity risk zone, have changed everything. No longer can the City exempt the few high hedges that have fire-prone vegetation that because of tree type or location (relative to first responders present a risk to many neighbors, residents and visitors).

July 7, 2025 Item 17
4 110 Stratford Court: Dense wall of Eucalyptus trees, about 200ft or more in length; difficult access for first responders;
July 7, 2025 Item 17
5 Compare 901 9th street, high dense hedge but wide street, distance from neighbors, easy first responder access.

July 7, 2025 Item 17
6 Stratford Court: High, dry hedge, moderate first responder access As the above photos show, the exemption from hedge is not a “one-size-fits-all” issue. I ask that the City Council consider asking staff and the Planning Commission to propose a set of additional provisions that addresses the application for the exemption in light of the City’s current fire risk.

Thank you.

Shirli Weiss
Respectfully submitted,
Shirli Weiss
551 Stratford Court
116 Spinnaker Court

July 7, 2025 Item 17
7 Shirli Fabbri Weiss
Retired Partner
M +1 858 449 4850
[email protected]
DLA Piper LLP (US)
July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 8:55 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Terry Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk; John Spelich; Matt Bator; Ashley Jones; Planning Mail Box
Subject: RE: Item 17, July 7, 2025 City Council meeting.

July 7, 2025
To: Del Mar City Council
CC: Planning Commission; Matt Bator; Ashley Jones
Re: Item No. 17, July 7, 2025 City Council meeting
Thank you to the Planning Committee and the City Staff, especially Matt Bator, for their hard, thoughtful work on changes to the TSVS ordinance and Hedge Ordinance and thank you for your attention to these matters.

I am a long-time resident of Del Mar and own properties at Del Mar Woods (116 Spinnaker Ct.) and Stratford Ct. This is the second of two emails, I am sending with comments to the proposed TSVS and Hedge ordinances.

I applaud the changes to these ordinances overall. I have comments on three specific areas, specifically that the City Council consider: (1) not adopting the blanket exemption for existing hedges in the proposed new Hedge ordinance and instead adopt a tailored approach, (red dot sent in by email dated July 6, 2025); (2) applying the sharing of costs between Tree Owner and view applicant for the ongoing maintenance of views found to have been unreasonably obstructed before the new ordinance is passed, to future costs of maintenance and (3) Eliminate the indemnification provision requiring successful applicants to indemnify the City for the cost of defending against an appeal. This red dot addresses subject (2).

Cost Sharing for TSVS view maintenance
In sum:

Cost Sharing for TSVS view maintenance: A number of people whose views were unreasonably obstructed in the past successfully applied for view restoration but are compelled to pay 100% of the cost of maintenance under the existing ordinance. In fairness, the cost of view maintenance between Tree Owner and past View July 7, 2025 Item 17
2 Applicant, in cases where the Tree Owner has been found to have unreasonably obstructed the View Applicant’s views before the ordinance is passed, should be shifted to the Tree Owner for future costs. Otherwise, a patently unjust system where the wronged view applicant is compelled to pay 100% of view maintenance costs will be perpetuated.

In detail:

The Staff Report explains the fee shifting cost as follows:

23.51.090 (Ongoing Maintenance) / Now (Allocation of Costs and Procedures for the Payment of Restorative Action Work)
• Section renamed “Allocation of Costs and Procedures for the Payment of Restorative Action Work.” • Applicant remains responsible for all fees and costs associated with filing a TSVS application. • Applicant is no longer responsible for 100% of costs relating to initial restorative action work or ongoing maintenance costs.
• Applicant and Tree Owner are each responsible for 50% of costs relating to initial restorative action work and cost of Tree Survey if view obstruction is determined to be unreasonable. • Tree Owner is responsible for 100% of costs relating to initial restorative action work, including the full cost of the Tree Survey if Tree Owner refuses to participate in early attempts to resolve the dispute, including offers to mediate.
• Tree Owner is responsible for 100% of ongoing maintenance costs ordered by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal (after completion of initial restorative action work).

The proposed changes to 23.51.090 propose to shift 100% of the costs of ongoing maintenance to the Tree Owner who has unreasonably obstructed the applicant’s views. The change to have the tree owner pay 100% of the cost of maintenance addresses an existing injustice in the current ordinance, because under the current ordinance, even though a Tree Owner has been found to have unreasonably obstructed the view, he is rewarded in his unreasonable behavior by having 100% of the cost of what should be his own obligation to maintain the view, shifted to the Applicant. In addition to being grossly unfair, this existing provision also served as a deterrent to Tree Owners to voluntarily trim because they could see that by fighting an application, even if they lose, they could have the cost of trimming shifted 100% to the Applicant.

However, to adopt a more just ordinance (though not perfect), the ordinance should provide (or clarify if this was intended) that 100% of the cost of ongoing maintenance shifted to the Tree Owner, shall also apply to past successful applicants whose views have been unreasonable obstructed and who are currently paying 100% of the cost of ongoing restoration. It is simply unfair and counterintuitive to correct an obvious injustice for new applicants and allow a continuing injustice for prior successful applicants who are made to bear 100% of the costs of maintenance. Laws and ordinances and resolutions frequently are passed that change the rights and duties of parties under prior laws and resolutions and no one has a right to benefit from an ordinance or resolution in perpetuity that has accorded an unfair advantage.

Here the past ordinance continues to cost successful applicants 100% of the cost of reimbursing the Tree Owner to maintain a view to which the City has determined the applicant has a right. The City Council should correct this injustice and eliminate the total “free ride” that Tree Owners who were found to have July 7, 2025 Item 17
3 unreasonably obstructed views currently benefit from, just as just as the proposed ordinance corrects the injustice as to new applicants.

I have in mind, of course, the unfairness to my neighbors at Del Mar Woods who are saddled with thousands of dollars each year of the cost of maintaining their view which were unreasonably obstructed by Torrey Pacific Corporation. Not only are they paying for trimming that should be done by the Tree Owner to maintain their views that were unreasonably obstructed, but they are also paying for trimming that is hopelessly inadequate to address the fire risk of the wall of Eucalyptus trees and shrubbery on the property, which should be done by Torrey Pacific.

I hope that the City Council will correct this injustice by adopting and extending the benefits of the cost shifting provisions of the proposed ordinance to past successful applicants.

Thank you.

Respectfully submitted,
Shirli Weiss
551 Stratford Ct.
116 Spinnaker Ct.

July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 9:56 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Terry Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk; John Spelich; Matt Bator; Ashley Jones; Planning Mail Box
Subject: RE: Item 17, July 7, 2025 City Council meeting.

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.

July 7, 2025
To: Del Mar City Council
CC: Planning Commission; Matt Bator; Ashley Jones;
Re: Item No. 17, July 7, 2025 City Council meeting
Dear Honorable Mayor and other distinguished City Council members:

Thank you to the Planning Committee and the City Staff, especially Matt Bator, for their hard, thoughtful work on changes to the TSVS ordinance and Hedge Ordinance and thank you for your attention to these matters.

I am a long-time resident of Del Mar and own properties at Del Mar Woods (116 Spinnaker Ct.) and Stratford Ct. This is the third of three emails, I am sending with comments to the proposed TSVS and Hedge ordinances. This one addresses:

The Requirement that Successful Applicants whose view has been unreasonably blocked must indemnify the City for challenges to the City’s ruling.

In sum:

This provision is too great a burden on successful applicants and will discourage meritorious claims and is probably against public policy.

In Detail:

Staff Report: The proposed 23.51.130 (Indemnification):
• Requires applicant to indemnify and hold the City harmless from claims relating to the TSVS process.

Obviously, as a Resident and member of a City Committee, I am philosophically in favor of any provision that saves the City money. But as an attorney and citizen, I think this one goes too far, sets a bad precedent and likely is against public policy.

The cost of applying for and carrying out a view application is already very high, I spent $150,000 when all was said and done on lawyers and experts (and I did most of the work!) to restore my view at Del Mar Woods over 7 years ago. This provision would increase the cost to a successful or unsuccessful applicant whose City ruling is appealed to the courts. It will serve as a deterrent to meritorious claims. It is also likely unenforceable and it sets a bad precedent. I don’t know if there are similar ordinances on the City’s books, but think about it:
the City passes a law establishing a right, but to access that right, a citizen has to agree to pay the City’s attorney fees if the City enforces the right and gets sued, or declines to enforce the right and gets sued. That conditions access to the right on being wealthy, because the cost of defending the City in litigation is of course very expensive. Rather, the City should bear the cost of enforcing its laws and rights of its citizens, that’s what they pay taxes for. Imagine if every time a citizen sought to enforce a law, he had to indemnify the government for any attorneys fees it incurs if it is sued. Untenable! I urge the City Council to reject this provision.

If the City Council does not reject the provision, it should at least provide that counsel will be selected by the applicant if on the same side, that the same counsel may represent both the applicant and the City in Court 2 litigation (so that the costs are not doubled), and that the City will cooperate in the defense without additional fees or costs.

But I request that the City Council reject the provision. Taxpayers should not pay this additional cost to have the City enforce its own laws.

Thank you.

Respectfully submitted,
Shirli Weiss
551 Stratford Ct.
116 Spinnaker Ct.
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: cathy iwane <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 12:09 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Shige Iwane
Subject: Item 17 – Red Dot—TSVS Ordinance Amendments
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.

Mayor & City Council Members
City of Del Mar
July 7, 2025 Council Docket
Dear Mayor Gaasterland and Members of the City Council:

We recently met with good friends who have moved from Del Mar to Solana Beach. They shared with us their shock at witnessing their next door neighbor cut down a mature Torrey Pine Tree without the need to first consult community members or obtain a permit to do so. As residents of Del Mar, we are thankful for the City's decades of care and protection for our gorgeous trees. We believe that the peace, shade and carbon sequestration afforded us by our trees is precisely what sets us apart from other communities and is what attracted us to settle in Del Mar.

That said, we have concerns regarding 20+ year timespan and current Del Mar tree policy:

While we support a more objective view restoration process for applicants with clear documentation, extending the timeframe from 10 to 20+ years risks significant tree canopy loss—especially when our trees already face threats from disease, beetles, and over-pruning. Del Mar continues to lose trees due to lot-clearing for new housing, with no consistent tree replacement policy in place. Without replenishment, our urban forest is in decline.

We commend the Planning Commission for honoring Guiding Principle #7 by supporting tree replacement for removals under the TSVS process. We strongly urge requiring mitigation for any mature tree removal, either via on-site replanting or payment into the City’s Tree Mitigation Fund.

We are also concerned about the lack of ISA pruning standards for protected trees like Torrey Pines and Monterey Cypress. If property owners are tasked with tree maintenance, clear oversight and standards are critical. We recommend adding a requirement that any business pruning protected trees be licensed in Del Mar and have an ISA-certified arborist on staff.

Lastly, we urge the City to suspend targeting any tree species for removal under outdated fire risk lists until a thorough tree policy review is complete.

Thank you for considering these vital measures to protect Del Mar’s urban forest.

July 7, 2025 Item 17
2 Sincerely,
Cathy & Shige Iwane
Pine Needles Drive
Del Mar
July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Ron Prater <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 9:05 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red dot letter regarding Item 17 of the July 7 Council Meeting Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mayor Gaasterland and City Councilmembers City of Del Mar July 7 Council Agenda Re: Item 17, TSVS Ordinance--Red Dot LeƩer
Dear Mayor Gaasterland and City Council Members,
I am very concerned about loss to the tree canopy in Del Mar. It would be kind to improve the scenic views for some residents, but I am worried that the tree loss will negaƟvely affect the public. The tree canopy is one of the things that sets Del Mar off as a uniquely aƩracƟve place to live. The public benefit of the trees is enormous. A resident with impacted views may feel that the loss of a single tree won't affect anything much, but too soon we may have the loss of the forested urban landscape that we treasure so much now. This is in part a maƩer of private benefit versus public good.

Around the world, there are millions of people with beauƟful ocean views. But only in Del Mar are we lucky enough to view the ocean through mature Torrey pine trees, which have an open growth paƩern that enhances the view.

Please lean toward protecƟon of our trees!
-Ronald Prater
442 Zuni Drive
Del Mar, CA 92014
July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Michael Deftos <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 9:19 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot, Item 17, TSVS and Hedge Height Ordinance, July 7 City Council Meeting 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.

Del Mar City Council,
During the Planning Commission hearings, I unsuccessfully sought clarification regarding whether the intent of the proposed New TSVS Ordinance is to completely restore the view to the degree of Allowable Scenic View Obstruction (Table 1), or whether the intent is for application of the Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action (23.51.070) to sometimes limit view restoration to something less than this (Allowing view obstruction that is Not Allowed to persist). Matt responded to a question regarding this from a Planning Commissioner by stating that “you would have to bring it back to whatever the reasonableness standard is.” Perhaps there is nuisance to the language in the response, and the intent is for view obstruction that is Not Allowed to sometimes be considered Reasonable. I think it’s reasonable to ask for clarification regarding this. It’s central to the New TSVS Ordinance.

A fundamental change in the proposed New TSVS Ordinance is that City staff will make a recommendation for an Appropriate Restorative Action Plan (23.51.080 A). Recommendations from City staff carry great weight. If the Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action (23.51.070) can limit view restoration such that view obstruction that is Not Allowed can be considered Reasonable and Allowed to persist, the subjective weighing of these Criteria by City staff could strongly influence the degree of view restoration granted.

Instead, I believe the subjective weighing of the Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action should be left entirely to the Planning Commission, who are representatives of the community appointed by the elected City Council, without influence from City staff. Rather than first considering a recommendation from City staff, I suggest the Planning Commission independently choose between the Restorative Action Plan submitted by the Applicant and any Plan submitted by the Tree Owner, or some hybrid of these.

The proposed exclusion of scenic views created by natural processes such as trees falling during storms or dying from age or other causes from protection by the proposed New TSVS Ordinance (23.51.020) should be reconsidered. Views created by such natural processes help offset views lost by the unnatural process of planting new trees (and their subsequent growth). The TSVS process is onerous, and not all views lost by tree planting and growth will be restored. These “created” views also help offset views that will be lost from the codification of a certain degree of Allowable View Obstruction by trees by the proposed New TSVS Ordinance and by view obstruction that is currently allowed during adjacent property development by the DRB Ordinance.

Scenic views from residential properties should be considered an asset the City desires to protect rather than a burden on City staff to protect. They greatly affect property values that support the City’s property tax revenue.

July 7, 2025 Item 17
2 Overall, I continue to prefer the Current TSVS Ordinance to the proposed New TSVS Ordinance and advocate for more measured changes, such as gradually increasing the look back time window and cost allocation for restorative work. Matt drafted the current ordinance years ago. Kudos to him for that. It’s a good ordinance that can and has been effectively and judiciously applied in its current form.

The proposed hedge height restriction was not supported by the Planning Commission. It should be rejected as currently proposed and reimagined. Treating hedges as equivalent to fences is too simplistic and ignores that most hedges greater than 6 feet in height impose no burden on anyone and frequently confer aesthetic and privacy benefits. There should be more nuisance to any hedge height restrictions.

Thanks for your consideration,
Michael Deftos
July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Ann Feeney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 7:26 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: City Council Item #17 TSVS Red dot
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 Mayor and City Councilmembers,

Our tree canopy has been significantly diminished by infestations of the bark beetles and fungal infections that have affected many of our trees. With the new fire regulations that will be coming into effect next year, our tree canopy will again be significantly reduced. Many people who build new houses remove all trees, including mature ones, from the property. Therefore any regulations such as TSVS that will allow removal of healthy mature trees should be carefully considered. Many of us chose Del Mar as our residence in large part because of the beautiful treed neighborhood. Trees sequester carbon, remove pollutants from the air, provide shade and cooling, beautify the neighborhood, increase property values in the neighborhood. I agree with Guiding principle #7 which states, in part: “Balance needs of view protection with all the benefits provided by tree and vegetation growth, and the goals of the CAP..”. We should do all that we can to preserve mature trees, while at the same time balancing the proper rights of residents to scenic views and sunlight.

With this in mind, I recommend:

1. Tree replacement. I believe that any mature trees that need to be removed for view or sunlight issues should be replaced. This should be required, not optional. Furthermore, the size and/or number of trees to replace a mature tree should be spelled out in the ordinance and should be commensurate with the size of the tree that was removed.

2. Trees in public right of way. The City should require tree removal permit for removal of any such trees, and any major pruning should be done with involvement of a certified arborist (to prevent topping and other severe undesired pruning techniques)

3. Hedges. A 6’ maximum height will not necessarily provide a privacy screen, and higher hedge limits will allow for a more green and beautiful aspect to our neighborhoods. Unless a view would be impacted, I am in favor of a higher hedge level.

4. I am in favor of a 10 year, not 23 year, time frame for raising an issue. If a resident has not had a concern for the past 10 years, that should be long enough. With the tree diseases that have wiped out many of our trees, extending this time frame to 23 years will certainly result in a decrease in our tree canopy.

5. The Public Tree Policy Manual is severely outdated. Nothing should rely on it since it is planned to be updated in the next year.

Thank you for your consideration.

July 7, 2025 Item 17
2 Ann Feeney
Rimini Road

July 7, 2025 Item 17
Mayor & City Councilmembers
City of Del Mar
July 7, 2025 Council Docket
From: Catherine and Peter Cramton, 901 Highland Avenue
RE: Item 17–Red Dot—TSVS Ordinance Amendments
Dear Mayor Gaasterland and Members of the City Council:

We moved to Del Mar about five years ago. We chose Del Mar because of its tree canopy and historical, small-town character, in addition to its ocean views. We write concerning two matters related to TSVS ordinance amendments.

First, we urge the City Council to retain the well-established and understood ten-year lookback window for bringing Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight cases. We have major concerns with the proposition to lengthen the lookback period indefinitely, from 2002 forward.

The ten-year lookback window embodies a principle: Residents most certainly have a right to view restoration when their view has been blocked. It is not unreasonable, however, to maintain that they have a responsibility to bring forward claims sooner rather than later, when remediation can more likely be achieved and maintained in a graceful manner. Ten years is a long time, and testimony before the Planning Commission affirmed that this period is well understood in our community and that people are attentive to maintaining their views. The big concerns, rather, seem to be the arduousness and cost of seeking remediation, and the City resources required, rather than the time period allotted.

As a guide to action, why is 23 years and forward the right number, and 2002 the right year? The cost of this potential change is that, without a statute of limitations, view obstruction cases may be brought far later in time. We share the concern of more than 60 other Del Mar residents that this may result in more aggressive removal and severe pruning of mature trees and foliage.

Changing a well-established precedent usually brings unforeseen consequences, which can be negative and can stir conflict. We would predict more conflict over surprise cases, cases based on long ago conditions, and cases brought after ownership of the subject property has changed.

On a second matter, the Planning Commission considered without resolution new regulations on hedges in Del Mar. In the case of established hedges, we support their management with the toolkit provided by existing ordinances that regulate safety and view blockage. Del Mar has quite a few well-maintained hedges that are proportionate to the trees and landscape around them and contribute to the beauty of our community. In addition, much of Del Mar is built on hilly terrain, which affects the function of hedges for privacy.

We recognize with gratitude the time, thought and effort that you, the members of our City Council, give to our community. We also appreciate the work of the Planning Commission, and that of our highly capable and dedicated City Staff. We think that Del Mar is special among surrounding ocean view communities in having not only spectacular ocean views but also inspiring, mature landscapes. We thank you for your time and consideration in this matter and hope to do our part in the community.

July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 8:57 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Terry Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; John Spelich; Dan Quirk; Janet Wilson; Nigel Hook Subject: City Council 7/7/25 agenda item # 17- TSVS Photo Requirement Attachments: 20250706_TSVS_Photographs.pdf
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 Council,
Attached is a brief analysis explaining why requiring a “before” photograph in TSVS claims would be unfair, burdensome, and inconsistent with best practices. While photographs can be helpful, they should not be mandatory. This document outlines the reasons and legal precedents supporting the continued acceptance of alternative, verifiable evidence to ensure fairness for all residents.

Thank you for considering this perspective as you evaluate potential changes to the TSVS process.

Best regards,
Janet Wilson & Nigel Hook
635 Hoska Dr
July 7, 2025 Item 17
Subject: Why Requiring a Photograph for TSVS Claims is Illogical, Unfair, and Outdated Under Chapter 23.51 (Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight), claimants are currently allowed to submit documentable evidence. Changing the TSVS application process to require a “before” photograph would often be unfair and overly burdensome for applicants. While photographs are invaluable, they should not be mandatory for the following reasons:

1. Photographs Are Not Always Available
Requiring a photograph may disadvantage elderly residents and those without access to technology, creating inequities in enforcement.

It is unrealistic to expect residents to anticipate future disputes and proactively capture a precise “baseline” photograph years in advance. Many homeowners are unaware of which angles or details might later be necessary, and it is unreasonable to assume that real estate agents will advise new residents to protect their view in this way.

Photographs can also be lost to fire, flood, or technical failure.

Applications should not be denied solely because a “before” photograph is absent.

2. Photographs Are No Longer Reliable in the Age of AI
Requiring photographs could inadvertently encourage manipulation using widely available AI tools that are capable of adding or removing vegetation, adjusting lighting, and altering angles in near-photorealistic ways, making fraud detection more difficult.

Enforcement systems are not equipped to reliably verify authenticity, and metadata can easily be forged or stripped. Making photographs mandatory increases the risk of falsified evidence, undermining the integrity of the TSVS process.

See the attachment where, in just two clicks, a photograph was manipulated.

3. Legal Precedent Does Not Require a Specific Type of Evidence Courts and administrative proceedings in California accept all admissible evidence types, including circumstantial and testimonial evidence, to establish facts. There is no legal requirement that a specific kind of evidence is required:
• People v. Towler (1982): Circumstantial evidence is as sufficient as direct evidence. • People v. Bean (1988): Convictions may rely solely on circumstantial evidence. • Evidence Code §411: The direct evidence of a single credible witness is sufficient. • Topanga Assn. v. County of Los Angeles (1974): Administrative decisions require "substantial evidence," including testimony and circumstantial evidence. • CCP §1094.5: Judicial review considers the whole record, including circumstantial evidence.

These precedents affirm that the absence of a photograph does not defeat a claim if credible circumstantial or documentary evidence is available.

July 7, 2025 Item 17
Requiring a specific type of evidence, such as a “before” photograph, would create unnecessary procedural rigidity and contradict the flexibility that California law allows for fair administrative decision-making.

4. Out of Step with Peer Cities
Peer cities with TSVS-type ordinances, including Tiburon, San Francisco, Rancho Palos Verdes, Mill Valley, Belvedere, Sausalito, and Clyde Hill, allow broad "documentable evidence," explicitly clarifying that evidence is not limited to photographs. Requiring photographs would put Del Mar out of step with best practices, and imposing such an untested requirement might expose the City to legal challenges.

Summary
The purpose of the TSVS ordinance is to protect the quality of life, sunlight, and views for all residents, not just those who possess photographs.

Requiring photographs poses procedural barriers, creates inequities, and increases the risk of manipulation, ultimately undermining the TSVS process. Fairness requires that residents without photographs be treated equally to those with them.

Due process and fair procedures require flexibility, not rigid evidence rules.

Request
The City should continue to encourage photographs where available, but explicitly allow alternative, verifiable documentation to support claims.

By maintaining flexibility, Del Mar can protect residents' sunlight and views equitably while preserving the integrity and fairness of the TSVS process.

Thank you for considering this necessary safeguard to maintain integrity and fairness in Del Mar’s TSVS process.

Janet Wilson & Nigel Hook
635 Hoska Drive
July 7, 2025 Item 17
A Real Example – TWO CLICKS AI removes Trees and Foliage Original Photograph
Request #1  “Remove the green screen from behind the fence in the foreground” Request #2  “Remove the trees from the middle of this photo”

Of course, some apparent discrepancies reveal the final image is not authentic (such as the windows in the home behind the fence). However, the point is that I was able to create these manipulations in under five minutes, and someone more motivated could easily refine them further to suit their needs.

July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Paul Cyr <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 9:29 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Terry Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk; John Spelich; Matt Bator; Ashley Jones; Planning Mail Box
Subject: Resident 240 Dolphin Cove Ct/ Red Dot
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.

July7,2025
To: Del Mar City Council
CC: Panning Commission; Matt Bator, Ashley Jones
Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts and concerns relative to the proposed changes to the TSVS ordinance and Hedge Ordinance. We truly appreciate your work to address this important issue.

My primary concern is that the grandfather exemption provision that stipulates that height restrictions will not apply to current hedging does not address the current hazard exposure. This exposure has only increased over the past ten years with additional planting on the Torrey Pacific property coupled with increased climate factors. Prudent steps to reduce the fuel level on the Torrey Pacific Corporation property must be taken to reduce the very real fire risk to Del Mar Woods residents and other neighboring properties. The current threat level will only be exacerbated as the trees and hedges age and dry out overtime.

I have spent forty years as a founder and principal of a large regional independent insurance brokerage and risk consulting firm. I have had the opportunity to discuss in depth with insurance carriers their findings following the devastation that occurred in the Los Angeles fires. There is currently a new focus from insurance carriers on understanding and identifying fire ignition points. I believe the Torrey Pacific property presents several ignition points of concern. Along with the increased exposure is the reality that securing adequate insurance is becoming more challenging and expensive. I believe that any change to the fire score caused by the exposures described could further constrict an already scarce insurance marketplace impacting all homeowners and residents in the subject area. It is in all parties best interests to reduce the current and future public safety risks associated with this property. Thank you.

Paul Cyr | Principal | The Arizona Group
1125 E. Southern Avenue, Suite101 | Mesa, AZ 85204
P: (480) 633-6660 | F: (480) 892-7625 | Front Desk Service: (480) 892-8755 July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Bill Ritman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 10:51 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: 07 July 2025 City Council Meeting Agenda Item # 17 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 help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.Torrey Pacific-DMW Hedge JUNE 2025-1-001.zip
Dear Sara,
Attached is a zip file containing the pictures of the hedge between the Torrey Pacific Development Company property and the property at Del Mar Woods HOA.

Thank,
Lori Ritman
(858) 736-6494 (Cell)
July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Bill Ritman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 10:53 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: RED DOT Fw: 07 July 2025 City Council Meeting Agenda Item # 17 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 Sara,
I am indicating that these pictures should be "red dot." Thanks,
Lori Ritman
From: Bill Ritman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 10:51 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: 07 July 2025 City Council Meeting Agenda Item # 17 To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.Torrey Pacific-DMW Hedge JUNE 2025-1-001.zip
Dear Sara,
Attached is a zip file containing the pictures of the hedge between the Torrey Pacific Development Company property and the property at Del Mar Woods HOA.

Thank,
Lori Ritman
(858) 736-6494 (Cell)
July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Bill Ritman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 11:12 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Fw: You Have Uploaded Files To ShareFile
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 Sara,
I was able to upload all the pictures as indicted below. This is for item 17 Red Dot on tonight's agenda.

Thanks,
Lori
(858) 736-6494
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Lori Ritman (None) <mail@sfnotifications.com> Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 11:10 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: You Have Uploaded Files To ShareFile

To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Lori,
This message is confirmation that you have uploaded the following files at 07/07/2025 2:09:59 pm
File Box
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet. Hedge.13.jpg
July 7, 2025 Item 17
2 Size 3.43 MB
Date 07/07/2025 2:09:59 pm
User L. Ritman
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet. Hedg.9.jpg
Size 4.11 MB
Date 07/07/2025 2:09:59 pm
User L. Ritman
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet. Hedge.10.jpg
Size 4.75 MB
Date 07/07/2025 2:09:59 pm
User L. Ritman
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet. Heidg.3.jpg
Size 5.62 MB
Date 07/07/2025 2:09:59 pm
User L. Ritman
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet. Hedge.6.jpg
Size 5.07 MB
Date 07/07/2025 2:09:59 pm
User L. Ritman
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet. Hedge.11.jpg
Size 4.75 MB
Date 07/07/2025 2:09:59 pm
User L. Ritman
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet. Hedge14.jpg
Size 6.53 MB
Date 07/07/2025 2:09:59 pm
User L. Ritman
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet. Hedge.25JUN2025.1.jpg
Size 7.05 MB
Date 07/07/2025 2:09:59 pm
July 7, 2025 Item 17
3 User L. Ritman
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet. Hedge.5.jpg
Size 7.64 MB
Date 07/07/2025 2:09:59 pm
User L. Ritman
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet. Hedge.4.jpg
Size 6.19 MB
Date 07/07/2025 2:09:59 pm
User L. Ritman
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet. Hiedg.15.jpg
Size 7.78 MB
Date 07/07/2025 2:09:59 pm
User L. Ritman
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet. Hedge.8.jpg
Size 6.80 MB
Date 07/07/2025 2:09:59 pm
User L. Ritman
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet. Hedge.12.jpg
Size 6.41 MB
Date 07/07/2025 2:09:59 pm
User L. Ritman
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet. Hedge.7.jpg
Size 6.18 MB
Date 07/07/2025 2:09:59 pm
User L. Ritman
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet. Hidge.2.jpg
Size 8.43 MB
Date 07/07/2025 2:09:59 pm
User L. Ritman
July 7, 2025 Item 17
4 To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet. Hedge.16.jpg
Size 8.11 MB
Date 07/07/2025 2:09:59 pm
User L. Ritman
Click here to change how often ShareFile sends
emails
Dates are displayed in UTC -5
Need help? We're here for you.

Visit sharefile.com/support and look for “Start chat.”
July 7, 2025 Item 17
July 7, 2025 Item 17
July 7, 2025 Item 17
July 7, 2025 Item 17
July 7, 2025 Item 17
July 7, 2025 Item 17
July 7, 2025 Item 17
July 7, 2025 Item 17
July 7, 2025 Item 17
July 7, 2025 Item 17
July 7, 2025 Item 17
July 7, 2025 Item 17
July 7, 2025 Item 17
July 7, 2025 Item 17
July 7, 2025 Item 17
July 7, 2025 Item 17
July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 11:53 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Terry Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; John Spelich; Dan Quirk; Nigel Hook; Janet Wilson Subject: City Council 7/7/25 agenda item # 17 Amendment ZA 25-001 - Regulation of Hedges Attachments: 20250706_Hedge_Regulations-ZA 25-001.pdf
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,
Please find attached a document for your consideration regarding Amendment ZA 25-001, which outlines why Del Mar should adopt clear, enforceable hedge height limits consistent with existing fence regulations to protect public safety, visibility, and fire safety. The document explains why automatic grandfathering of over-height hedges undermines these goals and recommends a fair, case-by-case review process instead. It also includes a comparative chart that demonstrates that nearly all major Southern California cities regulate hedge heights to promote safety and maintain neighborhood character. Thank you for reviewing these recommendations to help maintain Del Mar’s livability.

Thank you,
Janet Wilson & Nigel Hook
635 Hoska Dr.

July 7, 2025 Item 17
Page: 1
July 7, 2025
RE: Amendment ZA 25-001 – The Regulation of Hedge Height DMMC 30.86.090 Dear City Councilmembers,
Cities regulate fences and hedges to protect public safety, maintain visibility for drivers and pedestrians, and reduce fire hazards. We support regulating hedge heights and urge the City to adopt clear, enforceable standards consistent with Del Mar’s existing fence regulations. However, because blanket grandfathering undermines these safety objectives, we oppose grandfathering existing overheight hedges. Instead, existing hedges should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to ensure they do not compromise public safety.

Traffic Safety:
• Prevents line-of-sight obstructions for drivers and pedestrians. • Ensures visibility near driveways, intersections, and alleys, reducing the risk of accidents.

Fire Safety:
• Tall hedges can act as ladder fuels, carrying fire into tree canopies and structures. • Hedges can catch embers, igniting rapidly and spreading fire along property lines. • Trimming hedges reduces combustible material, aligning with CAL FIRE’s defensible space principles.

Neighborhood Character:
• Prevents fortress-like barriers that reduce community openness. • Maintains a consistent, welcoming neighborhood appearance.

A shared vocabulary is essential for sound, transparent decision-making. In plain terms, a hedge is a living fence.

Merriam-Webster:
“A fence or boundary formed by a dense row of shrubs or low trees.” Proposed Del Mar Zoning Code (30.04):
“Hedge shall mean generally dense vegetation so aligned as to form a physical barrier similar to a fence.”
Functionally, a hedge is a fence.

July 7, 2025 Item 17
Page: 2
Walkability and Visibility: AB413
Many Del Mar streets lack sidewalks, forcing pedestrians into the street where tall hedges often obstruct visibility. Effective January 2025, California’s AB413 prohibits cars from stopping or parking within 20 feet of crosswalks to improve visibility and reduce collisions. Excessively tall hedges pose similar visibility hazards and should be addressed with the same urgency to protect pedestrians and drivers.

Liability
While cities are rarely sued solely for failing to enforce hedge height regulations, they can face liability for dangerous conditions on public property under California Government Code § 835 if overgrown vegetation creates safety hazards that lead to injury. For example, courts have recognized that vegetation obstructing traffic signs or sightlines may constitute a dangerous condition (e.g., De La Rosa v. City of San Bernardino (1971) 16 Cal. App.3d 739).

Similarly, CAL FIRE’s defensible space requirements highlight the risk of dense vegetation acting as ladder fuels in fire-prone areas, increasing a city’s exposure to public criticism or claims after a fire.

By regulating hedge height, Del Mar can reduce potential liability, demonstrate alignment with statewide fire safety mandates, and proactively protect residents from foreseeable traffic and fire hazards.

Privacy Considerations
We recognize that hedges can provide privacy, which is an important aspect of enjoying one’s home. However, privacy must be balanced with the community’s need for safety and visibility because once a hedge exceeds 6 or 8 feet in height, it no longer adds meaningful privacy to a home but instead it becomes a barrier without purpose.

Automatic Grandfathering is Inappropriate
Del Mar is a mature city with many dense, over-height hedges.

Grandfathering allows safety and environmental hazards to persist indefinitely. Unlike permanent structures, hedges can be trimmed, replaced, or replanted at relatively low cost, making automatic exemptions unnecessary and counterproductive.

Allowing existing hedges to remain creates a loophole that encourages residents to gradually add new plantings to overgrown hedges, thereby avoiding replanting and undermining the ordinance’s purpose.

Grandfathering will undermine one of the primary reasons for regulating hedge heights, protecting public safety.

July 7, 2025 Item 17
Page: 3
A Fair, Case-by-Case Review Process
We encourage the City to adopt a case-by-case hedge review process, similar to Laguna Beach (https://ecode360.com/42893137), where exceptions are granted only if the hedge:
• Does not pose a fire risk,
• Does not create safety hazards,
• Does not block public views.

The burden should be on the hedge owner to demonstrate that their hedge does not negatively impact neighbors or the community.

Regulating hedge heights in Del Mar can protect privacy where appropriate while ensuring that hedges do not create unsafe conditions or fortress-like barriers. This approach allows contextsensitive decisions while prioritizing public safety and Del Mar’s long-term goals.

Conclusion
Del Mar has a responsibility to regulate hedge height reasonably and fairly and to manage vegetation that poses traffic or fire safety hazards. By regulating hedge height, Del Mar can reduce potential liability and better protect residents.

We encourage the City to:

Apply clear height limits consistent with fence regulations.

Reject automatic grandfathering of overheight hedges and implement a case-by-case review process prioritizing safety and neighborhood quality. The burden should be on the hedge owner to demonstrate that their hedge does not have a negative impact on neighbors or community safety.

We appreciate your consideration of these recommendations to protect Del Mar’s safety and livability.

Respectfully,
Janet Wilson & Nigel Hook
635 Hoska Drive
The following chart illustrates how cities down the coast of Southern California consistently regulate hedge heights in front yards, with most limiting heights to 3 to 4 feet to protect visibility, pedestrian safety, and neighborhood character.

Despite variations in size and community type, these cities share a clear standard that living fences should not obstruct sightlines or create fortress-like barriers along streets. The chart visually reinforces that adopting enforceable hedge height limits in Del Mar would align with regional best practices, promoting safety, fire defensibility, and fair, predictable standards consistent with peer jurisdictions.

July 7, 2025 Item 17
Page: 4
City MAP Display Front Yard /
Visibility
Side /
Rear Yard
Corner Lot
Visibility Triangle
Ventura 3.5 / 6 3.5 ft max 6 ft max 3.5 ft max
Oxnard 3.5 / 6 3.5 ft max 6 ft max 3.5 ft max
Burbank 3.5 / 6 3.5 ft max,
up to 6 ft if open above 3.5 ft
6 ft,
up to 8 ft in some zones 3.5 ft max
Pasadena 4 / 6 4 ft max 6 ft max 4 ft max
Beverly Hills 3.5 / 6 / 14-
16 3.5 ft,
up to 6 ft w/conditions 6 ft, up to 14-16 ft 3.5 ft max Los Angeles 3.5 / 6 42 in max 6 ft max 42 in max
Malibu 6
(restrictions)
6 ft max w/approval,
setbacks apply 6 ft max w/restrictions 3.5 ft recommended Santa Monica 3.5 / 8 3.5 ft max 8 ft max 3.5 ft max
Venice 3.5 / 6 3.5 ft max per LA City 6 ft max 3.5 ft max Marina del Rey
(LA) 3.5 / 6 42 in max 6 ft max 42 in max
Playa del Rey 3.5 / 6 3.5 ft max per LA City 6 ft max 3.5 ft max Manhattan Beach 3.5 / 6 3.5 ft max 6 ft max 3.5 ft max
Long Beach 3.5 / 6 3.5 ft max 6 ft max 3.5 ft max
Santa Ana 3.5 / 7 3.5 ft max 7 ft max 3.5 ft max
Rancho Palos
Verdes 3.5 / 7 3.5 ft max 7 ft max 3.5 ft max
Huntington Beach 3 / 6 3 ft max 6 ft max 3 ft max
Newport Beach 3.5 / 6 3.5 ft max 6 ft max 3.5 ft max
Laguna Beach 4 / 6 4 ft max 6 ft max 3 ft max
Laguna Niguel 3 / 6 3 ft max 6 ft max 3 ft max
San Clemente 3 / 6 3 ft max 6 ft max 3 ft max
Oceanside 3 / 6 3 ft max 6 ft max 3 ft max
Carlsbad 3 / 6 3 ft max 6 ft max 3 ft max
San Marcos 3.5 / 6 3 ft max 6 ft max
Encinitas 3 / 6 3 ft max 6 ft max 3 ft max
Solana Beach 3.5 / 6

3.5 ft max,
up to 5.5 ft if open above 3.5
ft
6 ft max 3 ft max
Carmel Valley (SD) 3 / 6 3 ft max (per San Diego) 6 ft max 3 ft max La Jolla (SD) 3 / 6 3 ft max (per San Diego) 6 ft max 3 ft max San Diego 3 / 6 3 ft max 6 ft max 3 ft max
Chula Vista 3 / 6 3 ft max 6 ft max 3 ft max
July 7, 2025 Item 17
Page: 5
Widespread Regulation
Nearly all major SoCal cities regulate hedge height under fence/wall/landscape ordinances.

Typical rules restrict front-yard or street-corner hedges to 3–4 ft, and side/rear yard hedges to 6 ft, occasionally up to 8 ft with certain conditions. Examples Across Cities:
• Los Angeles: 3.5 ft front, 6–8 ft rear.
• San Diego: 3 ft front, 9 ft rear with openness.
• Anaheim: 3 ft front, 8 ft rear.
• Irvine: 2.5 ft in front setbacks, 7 ft rear.
• Pasadena: 4 ft front, 6 ft rear.
• Santa Monica, Glendale, Burbank, Huntington Beach, Torrance, Fullerton, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Ventura, Oxnard, Camarillo, San Clemente, San Bernardino, Riverside, Corona, Murrieta, Temecula, Chula Vista, and others: Generally 3–4 ft front / 6 ft rear.

July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Jennifer Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 12:09 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Terry TG. Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez RN; John Spelich-private; Dan Quirk; Ashley Jones
Subject: Red Dot, July 7, 2025 City Council meeting, Item 17, TSVS Ordinance Amendments 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,
Please submit for today's City Council meeting. Thank you! Dear Mayor Gaasterland and other distinguished members of the City Council, Thank you to the Planning Committee and the City Staff for their work on changes to the TSVS ordinance and Hedge Ordinance.

Below are my comments on the TSVS. Overall, my concern is for the loss of tree canopy and in our community that will result without careful consideration of the long-term effects of the decisions we make today. We can balance the desire for scenic views and sunlight while protecting the natural beauty and benefits of our trees and urban forest.

I understand we are expecting data any day now from a City of San Diego LiDAR tree study comparing the tree canopy of our region (including Del Mar) measured in 2022 with the tree canopy measured in 2014. I think the results of this study should be comprehended before we take any actions that would further accelerate the loss of tree canopy in our community.

In addition, as other community members done a great job articulating, I support:

1. Tree replacement must be required to protect our urban tree canopy and the immense benefits it brings to our community. Many cities require tree replacement so there are solutions in place working today.

2. Need a better solution than a uniform 6 foot hedge height limit. One size does not fit all in our diverse geography. We can find a better solution that a simple one-size fits all. Not all hedges above 6’ tall are a problem.

3. Maintain the 10 year time frame vs restoring to 2002.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best,
Jennifer Anderson
July 7, 2025 Item 17
2 Serpentine Drive
July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Annie Duval <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 12:30 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: RED DOT - Del Mar Tree Ordinance & Fire Prevention 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 Council Members,
My comments relate to the management of trees as a fire prevention matter. 
 TITLE 10 - FIRE PREVENTION
 Chapter 10.04 - 2022 FIRE CODE[1]
 23.51.120 - Limitations.

Nothing in the Chapter shall deny private parties the right to seek remedial action for imminent danger caused by Trees.

I bought my first home in Del Mar in 1972 and in 1989 moved to Del Mar Woods and subsequent to that purchased my condo.

I was a on the board of the Del Mar Woods HOA for 8 years and part of that time, IO was president of the board.

During my years living in DMW, the BOD and community have been very conscious of our wood roofs, wood siding, and foliage hugging our buildings that couild be a potential fire hazard.

Being conscious of possible fire dangers created from wood and foliage, DMW spent millions of dollars to:

Remove wood shingles and replace then with a fire retardant composite material; July 7, 2025 Item 17
2 Remove all wood plank siding from every building and replaced it with Hardi board, a fiber cement siding which is fire retardant;
Remove foliage, trees, and bushes that are up against building or the tree limbs touched or hung over building. DMW replaced the bushes and foliage against the buildings with a 3 ft. strip of rocks surrounding all buildings.

Del Mar Woods has been a thoughtful and safety minded community which benefits not only DMW but creates a safety factor for the surrounding community as well.

We are not entirely out of the woods, so to speak, because embers from distant, or neighboring fires can still easily blow into cracks and crevices and cause building fires.

Del Mar Woods included remidiation of that risk.

I would like to propose that the Staver property consider their own fire prevention actions:

Remove trees that create a forest risk where trees are touching one another; remove entire branches to create a thinning effect throughout the property.

We all know that if enough heat is created, eucalyptus trees will quickly ignite. If that happens, the entire property can soon catch fire and ignite like fireworks.

A large fire at the Staver proper would endanger the entire southwest end of Del Mar. Add to the complication, the Staver property is at some level of increased risk due to limited road access on a single street where the property is at a dead end.

I have known the Staver property since I first moved to Del Mar when I took my kids to ride on the miniature train that was active and functioning then.

Being familiar with the Staver their property, I have seen their trees grow both taller and wider and forest like. Many of the trees along the fence line have been trimmed to create views. When trees are trimmed and topped, they grow taller with abundance of foliage and this becomes a constant management and costly effort and that has to be repeated every year.

Let's please BE SAFE RATHER THAN SORRY by taking a serious lesson from the LA fires- --there were too many to even recall all the names.

Let's not do a repeat performance in Del Mar.

Thank you for listening and thank you for the great work you do for our beautiful village of Del Mar.

Annie Duval
271 Stratford Court
July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 12:54 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: City council hedges proposal
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello
I own on 27th st in the Colony and am vehemently opposed to the idea of a hedge height restricƟon being proposed.

This is the only privacy afforded to my home from the constant foot traffic and noise from CDM. We respecƞully object wholeheartedly to this proposed ordinance.

Thank you in advance,
Sean Espino
Sent from my iPhone
July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Sandy Dijkstra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 1:06 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Item 17–Red Dot—TSVS Ordinance Amendments
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.

RE: Item 17–Red Dot—TSVS Ordinance Amendments
Dear Mayor Gaasterland and Members of the City Council:

I am writing re the TSVS Ordinance.

I would like to voice my support that the trees removed in the TSVS process should be replaced, and that the ordinance provide a ten-year period for possible view restoration. A longer time-frame will more visibly impact our urban forest, and more trees will require substantial trimming and even tree removal.

Thank you,
Sandy & Bram Dijkstra
July 7, 2025 Item 17

Del Mar City CouncilJuly 7, 2025

Del Mar City Council
July 7, 2025