Agenda, first session — Del Mar City Council, October 20, 2025

Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda
Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
October 20, 2025 City Council Meeting

INFORMATION RECEIVED

AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA

WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)
1 Robert Silva
From: Hershell Price <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2025 11:17 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Ashley Jones
Subject: Red Dot - Item 7 upcoming Council meeting
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Ashley and City Council,
Please pull Item 7 for a short Staff discussion of what the purpose of the proposed contract is and what specific STR issues it will be responsible for. I believe that would be helpful to all STR operators.

Thank you,
Hershell Price
Del Mar Resident
October 20, 2025 Item 7
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Kerridge, Carol <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 4, 2025 7:14 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item #7 Red Dot Agreement with Schmidt Design Group for the Shores Park Master Plan
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 Honorable City Council Members,
As a member of the Del Mar Historical Society I would like to give my full support to the consideration of moving the Alvarado House to the Shores Park and give my explanation of why I feel that it is important.

1. First, I believe that it is an important time for Del Mar to realize it's significant history in this region that includes recognizing many important steps to become a lovely high functioning seaside town, such as:
recognizing the Indigenous culture throughout this area, particularly along both watersheds that border our town on the north and south
respecting the original development of the town itself including preserving one of the first homes built in town, the Alvarado House
preserving the history of the creation of the railroad, the Fairgrounds, Racetrack and influx of Hollywood stars, and becoming a surfing mecca for beginning surfers recognizing the environmental efforts to preserve land for open space and parks including Torrey Pines Reserve, Powerhouse Park, Seagrove Park
October 20, 2025 Item 11
2 and proudly being part of the joint regional efforts to secure land acquisition to create and maintain the San Dieguito River Valley Park that originates on Volcan Mt. near Julian and spans all the way to the sea in Del Mar
(Perhaps a museum could contain these significant historical points of interest at some point in the future).

2. I believe that moving the Alvarado House to the Shores Park would be a first step in preserving our fascinating history. Being placed in closer proximity to our town in the Shores Park, it could easily be used for tours, small classes, or small events. 3) I believe that as we think of future generations, we need to realize that the Alvarado House is now positioned very close to the shore of the lagoon at the fairgrounds. As we learn more about the likelihood of Sea Level Rise, increased ocean storms and high tides, we could lose this valuable part of the history of our town if we don't act now to preserve it.

Thanks for considering these important suggestions as you discuss moving the Alvarado House to the Shores Park.

Carol Kerridge
Del Mar

3. October 20, 2025 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 11:19 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Comment - October 20, 2025 City Council Meeting, Item 11 (Shores Park Master Plan Agreement)
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.

Shores Park has served as a vital open space for residents and their dogs for many years, and the decisions made under this contract will directly affect the future of dog access and the character of our shared community park.

We ask Council to:

Wait until the Shores Park Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee—created by Council on September 8—has been appointed and can provide the community input it was established to deliver; and Allow for updated public engagement and data before finalizing any plan based on information collected a decade ago.

Taking this short pause will ensure that the final Shores Park Master Plan reflects today’s Del Mar—and the community we hope to become tomorrow.

Thank you for your time, service, and commitment to transparent, inclusive planning.

Sincerely,
Steve Pazol
Del Mar Dog Owner / Resident, 92014 Zip
[email protected]
October 20, 2025 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Tami Dokken <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 11:18 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot for Council Meeting October 20, 2025/Agenda Item #11, Shores Park Master Plan
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 Del Mar City Council,
I would like to address agenda Item 11 for the council's meeting on October 20, 2025, which calls for the approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Schmidt Design Group to complete Phase Two and Phase Three of the Shores Park Master Plan. Approval of this Agreement is currently listed on the Consent Calendar, meaning that there will be no separate discussion of this matter unless a member of the City Council or the general public requests discussion.

I respectfully request discussion on this item for the following reasons:
 No Input from Advisory Committee: The Shores Park Master Plan Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee was established to ensure community and stakeholder input to the City Council on Phases Two and Three of the master planning effort, which includes the development of a preferred concept for the Master Plan. See Resolution No. 2025-32 adopted September 8, 2025 and Exhibit A, Shores Park Master Plan Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee Charter. As of October 19, the members of this advisory committee have not yet been identified. See https://www.delmar.ca.us/926/Shores-Park-Master-Plan-Ad-hocAdvisory- (noting that all seven committee member positions remain vacant). Approving an agreement to complete the Shores Park Master Plan without input from this committee violates the City Council's resolution and the committee's charter, and sidesteps the council's intention to ensure community and stakeholder input to the City Council on this issue. Once assembled, the committee should be allowed time to meet, discuss, and prepare appropriate input.
 No Opportunity to Update Outdated Data and Community Feedback: The extensive work already completed by Schmidt Design Group includes comprehensive (a) data collection and public outreach on "demographics, operational and capital budgets, local and national recreational trends, comparative analysis to communities of similar size and density regionally, and any other issues which are impacting Del Mar or the Shores Park", and (b) a public outreach program to work with interested parties and the community at large. See City Council's Request for Proposal, Attachment B, Outline Scope of Work For Shores Park Master Plan. The data collection and public outreach efforts are well-documented but were conducted in early 2015. It would be prudent to review, validate, and if appropriate update October 20, 2025 Item 11
2 this information to account for likely significant changes over the last ten years in demographics, trends, comparative analyses, stakeholder interests, etc.

However, the Professional Services Agreement on the council's October 20, 2025 consent agenda does not provide for any updates or additional data collection or stakeholder input. The Scope of Services for this agreement simply states that "[Schmidt's] design team will review our previous studies, notes, presentations, and community feedback to build on the ideas and goals established during the initial outreach and design phase." (Emphasis added.) October 20, 2025 Agenda, Item 11, Exhibit A to Attachment A. The agreement does not provide the opportunity to revisit this to ensure that the data and feedback collected more than ten years ago remains valid and reflects the current environment, nor does it provide an opportunity for the voice of the current community to be heard. Please consider revising the Scope of Services to ensure that planning and policy decisions for the Shores Park Master Plan reflects today's demographics, needs, and wishes, and serves as a vision for the future of Del Mar.

Accordingly, I respectfully request the City Council to defer taking action on this agenda item.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments,
Tami Dokken
October 20, 2025 Item 11
20 Oct 2025
Del Mar City Council
1040 Camino del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
To: [email protected]
Subject: RED DOT ITEM for Agenda 9
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
As with others, I wish to support the relocaMon of the Alvarado House from the Fairgrounds to a locaMon in Del Mar closer to the city center. This historic house, considered the oldest in the city, is only open about 2.5 weeks at its current locaMon. Moving it to near the city center would allow us to open the house for display and tours during the year. It would allow the city to finally have an historical museum, to showcase our history from the Kumeyaay to the present.

The Del Mar Historical Society, of which I am a member, would be responsible for the costs involved in moving the house. Once moved, members of the Society would volunteer to open and provide tours of the House (probably on the weekends iniMally), as we have done at the fairgrounds.

The Alvarado House would, I believe, be a popular tourist desMnaMon and be a plus to local businesses.

Shores Park would be an ideal place for relocaMng the Alvarado House. Specific locaMons have been proposed by others, but one possibility is to place it on StraUord Street, on what is now part of a parking lot area (see aVached map), that we understand could be used. This locaMon might be ideal in minimizing the costs involved and in having the house accessible and more visible from the street.

Other locaMons in the park could certainly be considered.

Earlier (Red-Dot leVer 2025-09-08), I proposed that we consider building a new Del Mar Community Center building, to replace that at 225 9th Street, using the La Jolla Community Center building as a possible model. I include a possible locaMon for this proposed new building on the map aVached.

Thank you for considering this. It is exciMng to see acMvity on developing the Shores Park property.

Sincerely,
Michael Simpson, Del Mar resident
AVachment: Overlay of possible locaMon for the Alvarado House and for a potenMal new Del Mar Community Center building (using the exisMng La Jolla Community Center building as a template) at Shores Park.

October 20, 2025 Item 11
0 15 30 60
SCALE : 1" = 30'-0"
SHORES PARK 4.11.2017
A A’
GARAGE

WALK GARDENS WALK WALK
WALK
CLASSROOMS
TURF PLAY ON SLOPE STRATFORD CT. SLOPE SLOPE CAMINO

DEL MAR
ADMIN. WINSTON SCHOOL
SECTION AA’
+109 +112
+142 +144
+158

EXCLUSIVE OR

SHARED USE

DOG PARK
ENTRY
COURT
ENTRY

GARDENS
PLAY

OVERLOOK

BENCHES
SHADE

STRUCTURE

PLAY ON
SLOPE

COMMUNITY
BLDG

MULTI-USE
COURT
2 STORY

EXISTING
TORREY

PINE TREE TO
REMAIN
TURF

DROP OFF
RAIN
GARDEN

RAMP TO

GARAGE BELOW

CLASSROOMS

MULTI-PURPOSE

THEATRE

SIGNATURE

STRUCTURE/
PICNIC

EXISTING
OFFICE

EXISTING WINSTON

SCHOOL BOUNDARY
RECONFIGURE SIDEWALK ALONG 9TH STREET

TO REMOVE CHANNEL

EXISTING
TORREY

PINE TREE TO
REMAIN

EXISTING
TORREY

PINE TREE TO
REMAIN

SHORES PARK
2018.03.12
9TH ST.

CAMINO DEL MAR

RESIDENTIAL HOTEL
0 15 30 45
Scale: 1” = 30’-0” N

PARK PROGRAM - CONCEPT A

WINSTON
SCHOOL
STRATFORD CT.
+(137) +(140)

0.8 AC

0.6 AC
+ 147
+ 145
8% RAMP
5% MAX.
5% MAX.
5% MAX.
5% MAX.
5% MAX.
8% RAMP
8% RAMP
+ 142
+ 134
+ 137
+ 139
+ 112
+ 115 + 130
+ 143
PUBLIC

RESTROOM
+134
+136 +138
+140
+141
+142
+144
+152
4,700 SF
+144 FF
+144.5

ELEVATOR
FROM
GARAGE
6’ HT.

FENCE
8’ HT.

FENCE
1-2’ HT.

THICKENED
EDGE
3’ HT.

RETAINING
WALLS
2’ HT.

RETAINING
WALL

2.5’ - 5’ HT.

RETAINING
WALL
6’ HT. FENCE

WITH SCREENING

SHRUBS IN FRONT
3’-6’ SEATWALL &

RETAINING WALL
12’ HT.

RETAINING
WALL
3’ - 15’ HT.

RETAINING
WALL
+144
+(135) +(145)
+(116)
+(120) +(125)
+(112)
+(112)
+(160)
+(159)
+(158)
ADMIN.
127 ROOF
112 FF +
142 ROOF
127 FF +
127 ROOF
112 FF + 134 ROOF
112 FF +
112 SCHOOL PLAZA
100 GARAGE FF +
155 ROOF DECK
141 FF +

LIMIT OF

GARAGE BELOW
Del Mar Community Center
Del Mar Historical
Society Museum
Alvarado House
100’
100’
40’
40’
74’
100’
40’
40’
October 20, 2025 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Dan Smiley <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 11:31 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Comment – October 20, 2025 City Council Meeting, Item 11 (Shores Park Master Plan Agreement)
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.

Dear Mayor Gaasterland and City Councilmembers,
As a member of the Del Mar community and a regular user of Shores Park’s dog-friendly hours, I respecƞully request that the Council pull Item 11 from the Consent Calendar for discussion and defer approval of the Professional Services Agreement with Schmidt Design Group.

We ask Council to:

Wait unƟl the Shores Park Ad-Hoc Advisory CommiƩee—created by Council on September 8—has been appointed and can provide the community input it was established to deliver; and Allow for updated public engagement and data before finalizing any plan based on informaƟon collected a decade ago.

Taking this short pause will ensure that the final Shores Park Master Plan reflects today’s Del Mar—and the community we hope to become tomorrow.

Thank you for your Ɵme, service, and commitment to transparent, inclusive planning.

Sincerely,
Dan Smiley
12764 Via Esperia
Del Mar 92014
Sent from my iPhone
October 20, 2025 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Jane M Federle <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 11:35 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Comment – October 20, 2025 City Council Meeting, Item 11 (Shores Park Master Plan Agreement)
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.

We ask Council to:

Taking this short pause will ensure that the final Shores Park Master Plan reflects today’s Del Mar—and the community we hope to become tomorrow.

Thank you for your Ɵme, service, and commitment to transparent, inclusive planning.

Sincerely,
Dr. Jane M. Federle,D.C.

Del Mar dog owner /92014
Sent from my iPhone
October 20, 2025 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Lynn Wight <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 12:04 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Tonight's 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.

Please pull item number 11 from tonight's meeting.

Thank you
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
October 20, 2025 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Marilyn Hanes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 12:05 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Comment – October 20, 2025 City Council Meeting, Item 11 (Shores Park Master Plan Agreement)
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.

We ask Council to:

Taking this short pause will ensure that the final Shores Park Master Plan reflects today’s Del Mar—and the community we hope to become tomorrow.

Thank you for your time, service, and commitment to transparent, inclusive planning.

Sincerely,
Marilyn McCrary Hanes
251 Stratford Ct., Del Mar, CA 92014
Owner of a Residence at Del Mar Woods AND Owner of a Del Mar Dog. 619-540-6750

October 20, 2025 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Patti Passov <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 12:29 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Comment – October 20, 2025 City Council Meeting, Item 11 (Shores Park Master Plan Agreement)
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.

We ask Council to:

Taking this short pause will ensure that the final Shores Park Master Plan reflects today’s Del Mar—and the community we hope to become tomorrow.

Thank you for your Ɵme, service, and commitment to transparent, inclusive planning.

Sincerely,
[Paƫ passov
Paƫ[email protected]
Sent from my iPad
October 20, 2025 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: twoblackpoodles (null) <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 12:34 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Comment – October 20, 2025 City Council Meeting, Item 11 (Shores Park Master Plan Agreement)
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.

We ask Council to:

Taking this short pause will ensure that the final Shores Park Master Plan reflects today’s Del Mar—and the community we hope to become tomorrow.

Thank you for your Ɵme, service, and commitment to transparent, inclusive planning.

Sharon Scheele
1640 Straƞord Way, 92014
[OpƟonal – Your Phone or Email]
Sent from my iPad
October 20, 2025 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Wendelyn Bradley <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 1:01 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Comment – October 20, 2025 City Council Meeting, Item 11 (Shores Park Master Plan Agreement)
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.

We ask Council to:

Taking this short pause will ensure that the final Shores Park Master Plan reflects today’s Del Mar—and the community we hope to become tomorrow.

Thank you for your Ɵme, service, and commitment to transparent, inclusive planning.

Sincerely,
Wendelyn Bradley
Del Mar Dog Owner / Resident, 92014
[OpƟonal – Your Phone or Email]
Sent from my iPhone
October 20, 2025 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Wendelyn Bradley <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 1:00 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Shores Dog Park
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.

Please note voƟng city members want to keep the off leash dog park as it currently operates despite discussions of the Schmidt group wanƟng to come in and redesign and restrict off leash park hours This is unfair to our town and community that fought hard to get park access and mixed use and we would like to be heard and listened to.

Thank you
Best
Wendelyn Bradley
Dog park user and dog Mom to two fur balls
Sent from my iPhone
October 20, 2025 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Kelly Welch <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 1:45 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Shores dog park
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.

Hi…..

My husband and dogs have been regulars at the Shores dog park for many years. We love it as do our dogs. We have made many friends through this park that we would not have known otherwise. Our dogs have also made many friends! I cannot imagine life in Del Mar without our dog park. Please keep it going! Thankyou,
Kelly and Pat Welch
431 8th St.

October 20, 2025 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Richard Bockoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 2:01 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Comment – October 20, 2025 City Council Meeting, Item 11 (Shores Park Master Plan Agreement)
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 Gaasterland and City Councilmembers, As a member of the Del Mar community and a regular user of Shores Park’s dog-friendly hours, I respectfully request that the Council pull Item 11 from the Consent Calendar for discussion and defer approval of the Professional Services Agreement with Schmidt Design Group. Shores Park has served as a vital open space for residents and their dogs for many years, and the decisions made under this contract will directly affect the future of dog access and the character of our shared community park. We ask Council to: Wait until the Shores Park Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee—created by Council on September 8—has been appointed and can provide the community input it was established to deliver; and Allow for updated public engagement and data before finalizing any plan based on information collected a decade ago. Taking this short pause will ensure that the final Shores Park Master Plan reflects today’s Del Mar—and the community we hope to become tomorrow. Thank you for your time, service, and commitment to transparent, inclusive planning.

Sincerely, [Your Full Name] [Your Address or “Del Mar Dog Owner / Resident, 92014 Zip”] [Optional – Your Phone or Email]
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -Mahatma Gandhi
October 20, 2025 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Annie Herlik <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 2:46 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Comment – October 20, 2025 City Council Meeting, Item 11 (Shores Park Master Plan Agreement)
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.

We ask Council to:

Taking this short pause will ensure that the final Shores Park Master Plan reflects today’s Del Mar—and the community we hope to become tomorrow.

Thank you for your Ɵme, service, and commitment to transparent, inclusive planning.

Sincerely,
Annie Herlik
318 La AmaƟsta Rd
Del Mar, Ca 92014
Sent from my iPhone
October 20, 2025 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: The Idea Guy <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2025 6:08 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Request to Speak – October 20, 2025 City Council Meeting, Item 11 (Shores Park Master Plan)
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,
I would like to request the opportunity to speak at the upcoming Del Mar City Council meeting on Monday, October 20, 2025, regarding Item 11 – Shores Park Master Plan Agreement (Professional Services Agreement with Schmidt Design Group).

I am a resident with a Del Mar zip code, and I am concerned that approving this agreement now would be premature and inconsistent with the process established by City Council on September 8, 2025. The Shores Park Master Plan Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee—created specifically to advise on this phase of the project—has not yet been appointed, and no community input has been gathered since 2015.

I respectfully request that the City Council pull Item 11 from the Consent Calendar for discussion and defer approval of the agreement until:

1. The Shores Park Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee has been formed and can fulfill its advisory role; and

2. Updated data and stakeholder input are collected to reflect current community needs and priorities.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate and for your continued commitment to a transparent and inclusive public process.

Sincerely,
Kevin Popovic
1010 Stratford Court, Del Mar, CA 92014
[email protected], 858-353-6627
Kevin Popović | The Idea Guy® | Empowering Creativity.™ https://TheIdeaGuy.us | [email protected] | 858.353.6627 Join a Meeting: Zoom Room | Schedule a Meeting
Read What's Your Problem? - My New Innovation Advice Column for Business Leaders, Only in the San Diego Business Journal
October 20, 2025 Item 11
2 October 20, 2025 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Cyndi Pokal <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 3:34 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Comment – October 20, 2025 City Council Meeting, Item 11 (Shores Park Master Plan Agreement)
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.

We ask Council to:

Taking this short pause will ensure that the final Shores Park Master Plan reflects today’s Del Mar—and the community we hope to become tomorrow.

Thank you for your Ɵme, service, and commitment to transparent, inclusive planning.

Sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address or “Del Mar Dog Owner / Resident, 92014 Zip”] [OpƟonal – Your Phone or Email] Cyndi
October 20, 2025 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Alain <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 3:41 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Comment – October 20, 2025 City Council Meeting, Item 11 (Shores Park Master Plan Agreement)
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.

We ask Council to:

Taking this short pause will ensure that the final Shores Park Master Plan reflects today’s Del Mar—and the community we hope to become tomorrow.

Thank you for your Ɵme, service, and commitment to transparent, inclusive planning.

Sincerely,
Dr. Alain Romero
2005 Del Mar Heights Road. Del Mar CA 92014
Tel: 858 224 2260
October 20, 2025 Item 11
October 20, 2025 Item 13
October 20, 2025 Item 13
October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Robert Silva
From: Ken Olson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2025 7:26 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot for Item 13 on the Oct. 20 Agenda
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Del Mar City Council Members,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Ordinance. My remarks and suggestions are based on the October 6 version.

23.51.040
B.3. Suggestion: assign the responsibility for completing the mediation to the Applicant as would be the case in a court ordered mediation. This is written in the passive voice so nobody is responsible for getting it done.

23.51.050
A. Please consider an exception for trees in the Carmel Valley Precise Plan, such as "In the Carmel Valley Precise Plan area, only trees that exceed the prescribed height limits in this hillside community can create Unreasonable Obstructions”. Alternatively, this text could specify that specific tree rules imposed by other sub-zoning ordinances are not overruled by this ordinance.

C. Table 1. Noting that the initial paragraph in this section refers to reductions having occurred in scenic views, I propose that the title on the table be ALLOWABLE REDUCTION IN SCENIC VIEWS. This is an attempt to clarify that it's not obstruction that is measured, it is reduction in scenic views.

23.51.110
Too harsh in tone? It seems that a failure to comply with any provision of this chapter would be an infraction (a civil offense subject to fines) and not a misdemeanor (a criminal offense with potential jail time).

October 20, 2025 Item 13
2 Does failure to comply really constitute a public nuisance under Del Mar rules although it's not a public nuisance under California law?

Note that arbitrarily calling an infraction a public nuisance typically doubles the fine dictated by the infraction.

It seems pretty punitive. The fines for offenses have been set by the Council as appropriate for the infractions described. There is no good reason to double them.

Do we need to recite what might happen, worst case, in the event of a purported infraction of a neighborly tree ordinance?

Respectfully,

Ken Olson
Torrey Point Road
858-775-5546
[email protected]
October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Robert Silva
From: Dolores Davies <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2025 12:07 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Terry Gaasterland; John Spelich; Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk; Matt Bator; Richard Jamison Subject: Item #13–Red Dot—TSVS Ordinance Amendments; 10/20/25 Agenda Attachments: TSVS.Amendments.Council.102025.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Greetings, Sarah.

Please distribute the attached letter—signed by 60+ residents— regarding the TSVS ordinance, to councilmembers and staff for the October 20 Council meeting.

Thank you,
Best,
Dolores
October 20, 2025 Item 13
October 17, 2025
Mayor & City Councilmembers
City of Del Mar
October 20, 2025 Council Docket
RE: Item #13; Red Dot—TSVS Ordinance Amendments
Dear Mayor Gaasterland and Members of the City Council:

As with our previous letters to you on this subject, this letter represents the opinions of more than 60 Del Mar residents regarding the proposed Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight (TSVS) ordinance. We greatly appreciate the fact that this recent version does a much better job of honoring Guiding Principle #7, which seeks to balance view restoration 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. However, we do have concerns about the last minute insertion of an expanded de!nition of sunlight, which would allow an applicant to seek restoration of sunlight from any room in their residence.

Sunlight Blockage Restoration
While we agree that sunlight blockage is an important problem that needs to be addressed, we think there are more effective and appropriate mechanisms to accomplish this instead of expanding the de!nition of sunlight in DMMC 23.1.020 from the PLA to any rooms within a residence. While restoring a scenic view might justify a 300 ft. radius, since trees in the distance could block a scenic view, a window that has been shaded by 50% or more, is likely to be caused by dense foliage in close proximity—most likely a tall hedge between houses that is within 20 or 30 feet from a window. Since it is primarily adjacent overgrown hedges that block high levels of sunlight from nearby windows, wouldn’t it make more sense for this expanded de!nition of sunlight to be part of the proposed hedge ordinance? If the hedge ordinance is not forthcoming, the radius should at last be reduced to 20-30 ft. Given the need to preserve our urban forest and our many views of community-wide importance that feature trees, using the 300 ft. radius to serve as the standard for sunlight blockage is an example of overreach that is at best, unnecessary, and at worst, could result in the loss of more trees.

In addition, a strict prioritization of 360-degree sunlight preservation does not seem compatible with our Design Review Ordinance and Design Guidelines, which recognize the importance of using trees and other landscaping to complement building elevations, soften the appearance of structures, and provide the passive cooling that both bene!ts our quality of life and saves energy.
10-Year Time Span
We are very pleased that the City has decided to maintain the 10-year look back period or the applicant’s date of purchase, whichever is shorter. This will have less of an impact on our tree canopy, at a time when we are losing many of our Torrey Pines due to beetles, fungal diseases, and mistreatment, as well as the lot-clearing that occurs regularly when new residences are proposed.

ISA Standards for Pruning Torrey Pines & Monterey Cypress Trees We greatly appreciate the fact that the proposed ordinance now prioritizes the care and proper pruning of our protected trees by requiring that any tree trimming or removal be performed under the supervision of an ISA-certi!ed arborist. In addition, the ordinance now requires that “decision makers” must consider replacing any tree that has been removed due to the TSVS ordinance. If on-site or nearby tree replacement is not possible, could payment into the City’s Tree Mitigation Fund be required?
Thank you for considering the issues and concerns we’ve raised. We truly appreciate all the work that Matt Bator and other City staff members have contributed to get us to this—hopefully, !nal—version of 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
Anne Farrell
Via Alta
Dwight Worden
Seaview Avenue
Ron Prater
Zapo Street
Carol Isackson
Pine Needles Drive
Ron & Susan Taylor
Crest Road
John Goodkind
Forest Way
Linda & Frank Chisari
Crest Road
Valerie Dufort & Sudeepto Roy
Klish Way
Pat Bone
Culebra Street
Sheila & Michael Sharpe
15th St.

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 Way
Sandy & Bram Dijkstra
Rimini Road
Mara Bickett
Van Dyke Avenue
Catherine & Peter Cramton
Highland Avenue
Alice Brown
Avenida Primavera
Doug & Janette Shelton
Rimini Road
John & Gail Graybill
15th Street
Jason Dempsey
Crest Road
Lucy Taylor
15th Street    
 
Janet Wilson
Hoska Drive
1 Robert Silva
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2025 12:19 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk; John Spelich; Tracy Martinez; Janet Wilson Subject: City Council Meeting - Item 13 - Definition Suggestions Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council Members:

Over the past year, I have submitted several letters to both the Planning Commission and the City Council regarding the proposed updates to the TSVS ordinance. It is encouraging to see so many red dots from our community. After reading them, I realize that one important topic I have not yet addressed is privacy and definitions.

Payson Stevens’ red dot letter, in support of the ordinance, raises an important point by noting that privacy is not explicitly addressed as a stand-alone criterion. Privacy considerations fall under the sections titled Findings for Determining Unreasonable Obstruction.

Unreasonable obstruction is the central standard of the ordinance, and the phrase is used twelve times throughout the ordinance; however, it has not been defined. Defining “unreasonable obstruction” may clarify how privacy, sunlight access, scenic views, and public safety are meant to be balanced under the TSVS ordinance. As a starting point, consider the following definition:

Unreasonable Obstruction shall mean that the detriment to the adversely affected property is greater than the benefit to the property upon which it is located.

Other definitions to consider:

City Tree - a definition for City Trees is being added:

City Tree shall mean any Tree planted, installed, owned, and/or maintained by the City, which is located in, within or on a City park, Parkway, street, median, or other property owned by the City. For purposes of this Chapter and consistent with Section 23.51.030 of this Chapter, the term “City Tree” does not include any Tree located within the public right-of-way between the improved street edge and the property boundary of a private lot.

Question: Should the trees excluded from the City Tree definition also be defined?

Public Right-of-Way Tree shall mean any Tree located within the public right-of-way between the improved street edge and the property boundary of a private lot.

October 20, 2025 Item 13
2 Note: at the last council meeting, councilmember Martinez raised a question about the maintenance of Public Right-of-Way Trees, which has not been addressed. In other words, there are cases where the adjacent property owner will maintain the Public Right-of-Way trees, and there may be cases where that doesn’t make sense (along Jimmy Durante).

Scenic View
Michael Deftos correctly pointed out that the definition unnecessarily restricts backcountry vistas, and suggests changing the language to allow protection of all "scenic vistas" or "distant scenic vistas," not just those in the "backcountry" to the east. I agree and would like to expand on that thought because
Scenic Views inherently include open-sky elements
such as blue sky, clouds, and the horizon, which are integral to the visual composition that makes a view scenic. In other words, a Scenic View is not limited to physical landforms like the ocean or canyons; it also includes the open sky that provides light, depth, and spatial balance to the overall vista.

In the past, there has been confusion about the differences between a Scenic Easement and a Scenic View Easement. Should these definitions be considered:

Scenic Easement is a legal agreement where a landowner grants rights to the government to control the use of their land to preserve natural beauty, water quality, wildlife habitat, and other values.

Scenic View Easement is a specific type of Scenic Easement focused on protecting a particular scenic vista or panorama, preventing any action on the protected property that would obscure or block a desirable view.

Solid definitions are important because they establish a shared vocabulary that enables clear and consistent communication. A common understanding of key terms ensures that ordinances are interpreted and applied fairly and in accordance with their intended purpose.

Thank you for your consideration,
Janet Wilson
October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Robert Silva
From: Ann Feeney <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2025 2:00 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red dot letter for Item #13
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear 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.

I appreciate some of the modifications to the TSVS ordinance that was introduced in July such as the 10 year lookback instead of 23 years, and the use of a certified arborist for trimming of protected trees.

I still have a few concerns.

1. I was disappointed to see that the revised ordinance now expands the eligibility for Sunlight Obstruction from being just the Primary Living Area to all affected areas within a residence. This could result in many more trees being removed for no good reason. Sunlight through the PLA is reasonable; this new modification is not, in my opinion. I am opposed to this expansion of Sunlight Obstruction.

2. 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 discretionary. 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. If there is no feasible site nearby for the replacement tree, the money for the full cost of the replacement tree(s) should go into the Tree Mitigation Fund and be used for planting the replacement tree(s) elsewhere in the city.

3. As I understand the new ordinance, a resident could site a future ADU so that it would be located within 12 feet of a protected tree that they might want removed for other October 20, 2025 Item 13
2 reasons. No consideration is given to attempt to locate the proposed ADU in another part of the yard so that the protected tree could be saved.

Other than these concerns, I thank you, and also staff, for the time you have spent carefully studying these issues and crafting this revised ordinance.

Sincerely,
Ann Feeney
524 Rimini Rd.

October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: ulla rang <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2025 7:48 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 13 TSVS Amendment, City Council meeting Oct 20, 2025 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,
I support the red dots of Michael Deftos and Janet Wilson.

Also the letter by Ally MacNally has to be taken into consideration. Magnificent, old trees should not lightly be taken down for someone's slight inconvenience without the tree for example disturbing sewage (roots), breaking up foundations or having grown out of proportions and now hinder access to garages etc. An absolutely beautiful tree was just taken down in the south/east corner of 10th and Stratford.

Everyone loved that magnificent tree, including the neighborhood owl who sat there every night, calling us with its hooing nightly, reminding us of the beautiful earth we are living on. I cried the day I came home and that tree was gone. Who could do such a thing? That tree bothered nobody, nobody! No one's view was restored, no one's sewage worked better or no one's access to anywhere became better. To remove that tree was an abomination and I wish that whoever that removed that tree would have had to apply for permission and see if there was a different solution to whatever the problem that tree could have caused.

I am however one hundred percent behind ruling against people planting 60-80 foot tall protected trees around their property for their own highly unnecessary 60 foot privacy tree wall, taking every neighbor's view. That is just shameful and should not be allowed.

At the same time, I'm a little taken aback by the suggestion that a regular hedge can only be 6 foot tall.

Are people now supposed to cut down their gorgeous hedges that again is bothering no one and have been there for decades? That is just ridiculous. And to try to include it for only the lot area that is outside the setback is going too far in regulations. Especially now with the ADU's that don't have to follow the same setback as regular homes, a hedge is the only way to protect your backyard from being the window entertainment for the ADU that now is looming over your backyard. If I understand things correctly, this suggested mandatory hedge height is not going into this amendment, and I hope it never will. Please eliminate that attempt to a hedge coup ASAP.

Thank you for all that you are doing.

SIncerely,
Camilla Rang
October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Jayne Haines <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2025 9:02 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Letter -TSVS
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 Council members,
I understand that there is an item up for discussion at this week's City Council meeting in regards to addressing a sunlight protection ordinance. Reasons for wanting more sunlight vary. Some want to plant gardens and need the sun for plants to grow. Others may want to protect their properties from accumulating mold in dark places within our humid coastal corridor. Some residents simply don't want to feel boxed in by a neighbor's unreasonably dense and towering hedges or lines of trees. And most importantly, thick growth sets the stage for severe fire hazards in our already lush living environment.

It is unfortunate that we would need to implement a law to protect a homeowner's quality of life, when it should be all neighbors who work together to find a fair and balanced solution. But, that does not seem to be the case for many people who reside in Del Mar.

That being said, perhaps a plan can be put in place to nudge those who are not allowing neighbors to enjoy natural sunlight with their overgrown and unmaintained hedges and trees to be in violation of City policy. What that looks like, I cannot say, as everyone's situation is unique. Having no boundaries sets a stage where neighbors have nowhere to turn to when they are faced with an inconsiderate neighbor, other than to retain legal measures and incur high costs for both parties.

I hope that the City continues to refine the TSVS ordinance.

Jayne Haines
October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Catherine Cramton <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2025 2:13 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot—Oct 20 City Council meeting Item 13 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.

Dear Mayor Gaasterland and Members of the City Council, We are writing to thank you and City Staff for the careful consideration you have given to amending the TSVS Ordinance.

We are particularly happy to see the affirmation of the long-established precedent concerning the time frame for bringing TSVS cases. We agree that this measure has worked over the decades to encourage parties to bring TSVS cases forward in a timely matter so that needed remediation can more likely be achieved in a graceful manner.

Second, we support the modifications proposed by Richard and Dolores Jamison and others to the current draft of the ordinance concerning sunlight restoration, particularly establishing 20 feet as the radius for redress, rather than 300 feet.

Thank you again for your time and consideration!
Catherine and Peter Cramton
901 Highland Avenue
Del Mar
October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Marcellite Lasensky <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2025 3:26 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Support for Sunlight Protection and Objective Standards 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 whom it may concern,

1. Decisions should run with the land

2. Sunlight access throughout a home is important

3. Requiring a before photograph is not always possible (documentable evidence is all that should be needed of course photos are best evidence)

4. lower the price it’s ridiculously high.

Marcellite Lasensky
+1-858-735-7402
October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Dolores Davies <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2025 4:34 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Terry Gaasterland; John Spelich; Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk; Matt Bator Subject: Red Dot — Item #13–TSVS Amendment
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.

October 18, 2025
Del Mar City Council
City of Del Mar
October 20, 2025 Council Docket
Red Dot—Item #13, TSVS Ordinance
Dear Mayor Gaasterland and City Councilmembers:

You just recently received a letter on this subject from me, my husband, Richard Jamison, and 60+ other residents.

Unfortunately, will be out of town on October 20, and will not be able to attend the Council meeting. So, please consider this as a brief addendum to our letter, which seeks to clarify the rationale behind reducing the radius of 300 ft to 20 ft (and not 20-30 ft as suggested earlier) for establishing sunlight blockages of 50% or more.

As stated in our previous letter, we strongly believe that the recently added expanded definition of sunlight—from the PLA to any room within a residence—rightly belongs in the hedge ordinance, not the TSVS ordinance. As previously stated, the 300 ft radius that has been proposed only makes sense for scenic view blockages, which has always been the primary focus of the TSVS ordinance. According to Matt Bator, who has handled the TSVS ordinance submissions since its inception in 2002, no applicant has ever submitted an application solely for sunlight restoration. The process is, and has always been, about scenic view restoration.

If, however, the Council believes that this clause needs to remain in the TSVS ordinance, the radius for assessing sunlight blockages should be reduced to 20 ft, a more appropriate distance that would be more than adequate for capturing sunlight blockages of this magnitude, given that the closer the hedge or foliage is to a window, the greater the obstruction of sunlight.

In virtually all situations, whether or not the goal is to restore direct sunlight from 9 am to 3pm, or diffuse sunlight for a longer period, a tree—or more likely a hedge—would need to be roughly half the distance between the property line and the window glass, in order to block 50% of the sunlight. So, if the window in a residence is 10 ft from the property line, the hedge would need to be only about 5 ft away from the boundary to achieve 50% blockage of sunlight. Of course, the exact distance would depend on numerous factors, including the season, the sun’s angle and the time of day; window orientation, the size of the window, and the height above grade; the density of the hedge and its width; window glazing and interior reflectance; and other possible obstructions such as overhangs.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Dolores Davies Jamison
October 20, 2025 Item 13
2 Del Mar, CA
October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Barbara Myers <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2025 8:16 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: RED DOT: ITEM 13 TSVS Amendments
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.

Dear Council Members,
We are very much in favor of the TSVS proposed amendments especially because we have a difficult neighbor who is always reluctant to comply with the view ordinance in any way. Perhaps these amendments will allow us to get our view back.

Thank you for considering the passage of this important item.

Barbara & Doug Myers
2143 Heather Lane
Sent from my iPhone
October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Payson Stevens <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2025 11:40 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Terry Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk; John Spelich Subject: Re: RED DOT LETTER: Tree ordinance and Scenic Views 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.

Subject: Additional Serious Concerns Regarding Proposed TSVS Ordinance Revision (A25-001)
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
We'd like to add to our Red Dot letter/email sent on October 6th, the concerns raised by the October 18, 2025 Sandpiper on-line ordinance editorial.

The proposed changes to the Tree, Sunlight, and Views (TSVS) Ordinance (A25- 001) raise serious issues and long-term impacts that are not immediately apparent to most Del Mar residents. These revisions risk undermining the very character and natural beauty that define our community.

The new revision would radically alter the careful balance Del Mar has long maintained among trees, views, and sunlight. Specifically, the proposed expansion of sunlight obstruction eligibility—from applying only to the Primary Living Area (PLA) to any affected area within a residence—represents a major and deeply concerning shift in our existing ordinance.

This change would allow any resident to seek relief for sunlight blocked from any room, not just their primary living space. The practical effect is that virtually every tree within a 360- degree radius of any home in Del Mar could be targeted simply because it shades some part of a neighbor’s property.

Such a sweeping revision threatens to:
 Degrade Del Mar’s cherished tree canopy, which provides shade, beauty, wildlife habitat, and critical carbon dioxide absorption.
 Erode community harmony, by fueling more conflicts among neighbors over sunlight and views.

October 20, 2025 Item 13
2  Destroy the visual and ecological integrity of our neighborhoods that have taken decades to grow and define.

This proposal appears excessive, unnecessary, and potentially destructive to both the environment and our community relationships.

Please protect the Del Mar we all love—our trees, our views, and our civility— and substantially revise (or reject if need be) the proposed TSVS Ordinance amendment (A25-001) before it causes irreversible harm.

Respectfully,
Payson R. Stevens
Kamal K. Kapur
411 7th Street
Del Mar
On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 8:14 AM Payson Stevens <[email protected]> wrote:

To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the Del Mar City Council, Subject: Support for TSVS Ordinance (A25-001) with Essential Inclusion of Property Privacy
Dear Mayor and Council Members:

My wife and I have been Del Mar homeowners and residents for many decades and appreciate the need for balanced ordinances on views.

In general, we support the goals of the updated Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight (TSVS) Ordinance. Your recognition that views, sunlight, and a healthy urban forest contribute to Del Mar’s quality of life and economic value is appreciated.

However, we urge you to explicitly and equally protect property privacy within the final ordinance.

As the findings already note, trees and vegetation provide crucial visual and auditory privacy for residents. This landscaping often serves as the only essential barrier protecting our private living areas from direct view by neighbors or public spaces.

The current focus on view restoration must not inadvertently force residents to sacrifice this necessary privacy. Without a dedicated standard in DMMC Chapter 23.51, view restoration for one property may result in the complete and/or unreasonable loss of privacy for another.

We all know how views can become contentious issues and create conflicts between neighbors and this privacy protection based on vegetation and trees must be included.

October 20, 2025 Item 13
3 Another important omission is protection against impacts from neighboring jurisdictions. Del Mar residents living below San Diego's Del Mar Heights face an acute regulatory imbalance: we are held to strict local controls, yet San Diego's zoning permits denser, taller development directly above us, compromising our protected views and privacy without recourse. Our City Council must proactively bridge this gap. We urge the Council to implement inter-jurisdictional agreements or formal advocacy mechanisms to ensure Del Mar citizens' protected rights are respected by San Diego's development policies, preventing unilateral harm to our community's comfortable enjoyment and property value.

We therefore respectfully request that the final ordinance include clear provisions to:

1. Protect Property Privacy: Formally recognize and protect property privacy as an interest that must be weighed equally with view restoration during any TSVS review.

2. Ensure Balanced Resolution: Require a balancing test in dispute resolution, ensuring view restoration for one property does not unreasonably compromise the established, reasonable privacy of the property providing the vegetation.

3. Address External Zoning Impacts: Implement inter-jurisdictional agreements or formal advocacy mechanisms to protect Del Mar citizens' views and privacy rights from adverse development policies in neighboring jurisdictions like San Diego's Del Mar Heights.

Including privacy as an explicit element will ensure a fair and holistic regulatory framework for all Del Mar residents.

Thank you for your consideration.

Please confirm the receipt of this email and include it in your upcoming/October deliberations on TSVS Ordinance (A25-001).

Sincerely,
Payson R. Stevens
Kamla K. Kapur
--
Payson R. Stevens
Science Communications
Artwork & Paintings
Indian National Park/Friends of GHNP
October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Stephanie Tarkington <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2025 4:59 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: City Council Meeting, 10,20,25 Item 13 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.

Regarding: Repealing/replacing the current Del Mar Municipal Code on Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight Dear Council Members,
Thank you for taking the time to read all our Red Dots.

Our 3 Torrey Pines were planted when we built our house on 11th Street in 1978. 47 years old, very tall, very healthy. Magnificent in morning light, afternoon and at dusk, with the sunset reflected in our windows.

We all moved to Del Mar for a variety of reasons. Location, good schools, surfing, lagoons and Torrey Pines Reserve. If it was for a home with a view, then hopefully a home with a view was purchased. For Al and I, a view was not essential...easy access to the beach was our goal, our first home on 11th Street was perfect. The vacant lot at 100 11th Street was even better when it went up for sale a few years later.

Last week I walked from our beautiful City/Town Hall up 11th and north on Luneta down to Avenida Primavera. Our city has an abundance of carbon-offsetting trees, including our iconic Torrey Pines (our City logo), magnificent eucalyptus, palms, historic Monterey cypress and at least one enormous spreading Morton Bay fig . Shrubs, bushes, cactus, every kind of landscaping plan to not look cookie-cutter, rather individual personalities. Take this short walk when you can. It just feels good to be out in our town's parklike setting. To even consider requiring someone to remove a protected tree like a Torrey Pine is completely unacceptable and reads like a crime. The Del Mar Garden Club has to be concerned.

Del Mar has one of the best view ordinances in SD County, perhaps the state. As residents ask to build/remodel we have a process that includes owners, architects, builders, neighbors and city planning staff. All these meetings are prior to being on the DRB, Planning Commission or City Council agendas as needed.

There seems absolutely no need to change our entire View,Sunlight, Trees ordinance for situations that should be able to be handled on a case by case basis. I am especially opposed to requiring sunlight to be a requirement for other areas of a home other than the main living area.

October 20, 2025 Item 13
2 I do not know why this subject was returned to the council for any change and hopefully those in favor of all these changes will receive careful treatment through our current well-thought out & discussed process.

Thanks for your time,
Stephanie Tarkington
100 11th Street
Del Mar, CA 92014
October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Brian Staver <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2025 6:12 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Submission – Agenda Item 13 (Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Ordinance) Attachments: TPC_ Letter to Council re View Ordinance for 10-20-2025 Meeting SIGNED.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.

Hello City Clerk,
Please accept the attached letter for inclusion in the red dot correspondence for Agenda Item 13 on the October 20, 2025 City Council meeting agenda — Re-Introduction of an Ordinance to Amend Municipal Code Chapter 23.50 and Repeal and Replace Chapter 23.51 Related to Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Regulations (A25-001).

Thank you for circulating it to the Mayor and Councilmembers as part of the record.

Best regards,
Brian Staver
Torrey Pacific Corporation
October 20, 2025 Item 13
October 19, 2025

VIA EMAIL
Hon. Mayor & City Council
1050 Camino Del Mar, Town Hall
Del Mar, Ca 92014
RE: City Council Agenda Item 13 - Re-Introduction of an Ordinance to Amend Municipal Code Chapter 23.50 and Repeal and Replace Chapter 23.51 Related to Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Regulations (A25-001)
Dear Hon. Mayor & City Councilmembers:

My name is Brian Staver. I am the grandson of Marian and Ralph Staver, who purchased their property at 110 Stratford Court in Del Mar in 1950 and raised 6 children. My grandfather served as the Mayor of Del Mar for several years. Our family corporation, Torrey Pacific Corporation, now owns the property. Members of the family live on the property and we use it for on-going family gatherings. I was married at the property.

Torrey Pacific has been involved in the City’s Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight regulations related to a grove of eucalyptus trees that my grandfather planted in the late 1970s to create privacy between his home and the adjacent condominium development at Del Mar Woods.

In fact, he worked with the developer of the Del Mar Woods project on the placement of the trees. After the approval of the TSVS ordinance, Torrey Pacific Corporation worked closely with several of our neighbors and the City to develop a restoration and maintenance program that was approved by the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council. The restorative action plan was finalized through Planning Commission Resolution PC-2019-13. Since this restorative action and maintenance plan was directed and adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, the Staver family has carefully followed the plan. Our compliance is monitored and signed off by your staff every 6-months.

We offer the following comments on the revised ordinance for your consideration:

1. We agree with your staff that properties and trees that are already subject to restorative action and maintenance plans under the current TSVS ordinance are grandfathered under the existing ordinance. We ask that the City clarify that the ordinance will not be retroactively applied to an existing, City-approved restoration and maintenance plan.

Existing plans were the subject of extensive negotiation and public hearings; changing them now would undermine the City’s process and the rights of parties to the plans. Property owners with existing restoration and maintenance plans entered into those agreements in good faith, within the provisions of the ordinance as it existed at that time, and under the cost allocation regulations in the existing ordinance.

October 20, 2025 Item 13
As a matter of fairness and of law, the provisions of the new ordinance should not be retroactively applied to re-open prior, settled adjudications. We appreciate that Section 23.51.140.A clarifies that “It is not the intent of the City in adopting this Chapter to affect obligations imposed by an existing easement or a valid preexisting covenant or agreement between private parties.” However, this provision should be amended to be clear that it also applies to existing restorative action and maintenance plans approved by the City, like Resolution PC-2019-13.

2. We agree with staff’s determination in Section 23.51.010.B.3 that TSVS restorative actions do not run with the land and should terminate with the transfer of property. The ordinance as proposed provides adequate opportunity for new homeowners to maintain the view they have at the time of a purchase or in the 10- year look back period. Mandating that restorative actions run with the land would result in de facto height limits over individual parcels that could create confusion for future development and potentially even result in an unlawful taking.

3. We agree with staff’s determination that maintaining the eligible time frame of 10 years prior to the submittal of a complete TSVS application is the correct time frame for the view look-back period.

Thank you for your thoughtful review of the ordinance. The Staver family looks forward to continuing to stay active in the issues affecting Del Mar.

Sincerely,
Brian Staver
October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Daria Flores <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2025 10:12 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot: Item 13 – TSVS Amendments TSVS
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.

Frankly, I was shocked to hear of this proposal which pits expanded sunlight protecƟon over trees. Besides trees being part of our Community Plan, good for combaƟng climate change, and a way to cool our local environment, they are a lovely component of our community and a big part of what make Del Mar, Del Mar.

Why is Council even considering this?
Daria Flores
399 Straƞord Ct.

Sent from my iPhone
October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Nitza <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 12:00 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Subject: Additional Serious Concerns Regarding Proposed TSVS Ordinance Revision (A25-001
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.

Dear City Council members
I write to you in strong opposiƟon of the proposal to allow neighbors to oppose neighbors in our precious village, asserƟng view blockage caused by trees
As an early member of the “trees, sunlight and scenic view” commiƩee, I witnessed the adversity that was caused between neighbors who could not come to an easy understanding between them.

The trees of Del Mar are what disƟnguishes our neighborhood from all other North County neighborhoods as green & shady & verdantly elegant.

I also served on the sustainability commiƩee, where it is certainly evident that the canopy of trees helps to prevent climate catastrophe by providing cooling and carbon dioxide absorpƟon.

It is my belief that allowing neighbors to insist that the old trees of Del Mar be cut to serve the needs of individual views would be disastrous for the character, the health, and the ambience of our neighborhood forever more.

We have already seen the effect of allowing ADU’s to be placed haphazardly on properƟes where there used to be open space and green trees.

I urge the members of the City Council to think with a long-term perspecƟve and realize the consequences of allowing neighbors to oppose each other with unbridled power and selfish demands.

Nitza Leichtling
903 Straƞord Court
Del Mar
October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Drew Cady <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 1:24 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Terry TG. Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; John Spelich; Dan Quirk Subject: Proposed modifications to TSVS Ordinance
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
I write today in strong opposition to the proposal to allow neighbors to oppose neighbors in asserting view blockage caused by trees in Del Mar. This action would lead to an enormous loss for the residents of this town.

I have for these past three decades, observed the unfortunate outcome of many neighbor disputes from the existing “Trees, Sunlight and Scenic View” Committee. To allow an even more potent action would be ruinous to our community~!
The trees of Del Mar are what define our neighborhood and they offer shade and beauty in every street. Sadly, the trees have already been greatly depleted over the years. Recently, a new neighbor of ours, who had not yet even moved in had one of the most magnificent old Norfolk Pines on his property cut down with not do much as a word to the community. And this tree did not, in any way, disturb his view to the ocean, since it was on the far north corner of his land. This new proposed language into the Tree, Sunlight, and Views (TSVS) Ordinance (A25-001) would give any resident the right to alter the beauty, shade and green on an adjacent neighbour’s property. This is simply wrong!! Already the buildout of enormous , maximum floor area ratio structures and ADU’s (which have little if any restrictions upon them) is turning our community into a crowded and unsightly community.

Please consider the canopy of trees that is being lost with this less restrictive building allowance. These trees help to prevent climate change, providing cooling and carbon dioxide absorption.

Allowing neighbors to insist that the old trees of Del Mar be cut to serve the needs of individual views will be disastrous to the character, health and aesthetic of our neighbourhoods forever.

I urge the members of the City Council to see the long-term impact of this proposed language and realize the serious consequence of allowing neighbors to oppose each other with these detrimental changes to this ordinance.

October 20, 2025 Item 13
2 Sincerely,
Drew Cady
903 Stratford Court
Del Mar

October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Sandy Watson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 8:06 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; [email protected]; Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk; John Spelich Subject: Re: RED DOT LETTER: Tree ordinance and Scenic Views 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 Councilmembers,
We'd like to reiterate the concerns expressed by Payson Stevens. "This proposal seems excessive, unnecessary, and potentially destructive to both the environment and our community relationships".

As a Del Mar homeowner directly affected by SAN DIEGO ZONED homes we also hope the City of Del Mar takes into account the following: "Another important omission is protection against impacts from neighboring jurisdictions. Del Mar residents living below SAN DIEGO'S DEL MAR HEIGHTS face an acute regulatory imbalance: we are held to strict controls, yet SAN DIEGO'S ZONING permits denser, taller development directly above us, compromising our protected views and privacy without recourse".

We are not in favor of the changes proposed to TSVS ordinance (A25-001).

Respectfully submitted,
Bruce and Sandy Watson
October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 8:27 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Terry Gaasterland; John Spelich; Dan Quirk; Tracy Martinez Subject: Missing from Friday's Package Fw: City Council Meeting - Item 13 - Support for Sunlight Protection and Objective Standards
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.

Good morning,
On Friday, I sent in two red dot emails; however, one was included twice.

The second was inadvertently left out of Friday's package. It addressed Sunlight.

Thank you,
Janet Wilson
In summary, I respectfully ask the City to:
 Continue refining the TSVS ordinance to ensure that both direct and indirect sunlight are recognized as essential to the health, comfort, and livability of Del Mar homes.  Acknowledge the residential benefits of natural sunlight by adding language similar to Section

23.51.010(A)(2)(c) that reflects sunlight’s role in physical and mental well-being, energy efficiency, and home livability.
 Adopt an objective measurement method, such as Useful Daylight Illuminance (UDI) or Daylight Factor (DF), to fairly evaluate interior sunlight obstruction beyond what a Shade Study can measure.
 Allow sunlight access for new solar energy systems when no other reasonable placement exists and privacy concerns have been appropriately addressed.

October 20, 2025 Item 13
2 These refinements would strengthen the TSVS ordinance’s intent to balance solar energy, privacy, and quality of life within our community.

From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2025 3:38 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; John Spelich <[email protected]>; Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council Meeting - Item 13 - Support for Sunlight Protection and Objective Standards

Dear Mayor and City Council,
By definition, Del Mar has always recognized and protected both direct and indirect sunlight for solar energy systems and for primary living areas.

As established during the July City Council meeting, multi-generational households use kitchens, playrooms, dens, and home offices concurrently throughout the day. That discussion led to updates to this ordinance, which appropriately extend consideration of sunlight protection to these daily-use rooms, based on findings that take into account multiple factors, including privacy.

Solar energy system benefits are already acknowledged in Section 23.51.010(A)(2)(c):
“Plentiful sunlight provides an opportunity to utilize solar energy both actively and passively for home heating and climate control, thereby reducing dependence on fossil fuels.” The benefits of sunlight within a home should also be incorporated. For example adding to Section

23.51.010(A)(2)(_):
“Natural sunlight entering a room provides significant physical and mental health benefits. It improves mood by increasing serotonin levels, supports better sleep by regulating the circadian rhythm, and contributes to immune function and bone strength through Vitamin D production.

Access to natural light also enhances a home's livability, serving as a natural disinfectant that helps prevent mold, mildew, and bacteria. In addition, relying on daylight rather than artificial lighting during the day reduces energy consumption and dependence on fossil fuels.”

Determining obstruction to a solar energy system is relatively straightforward using a Shade Study.

However, a Shade Study cannot measure the obstruction of indirect or ambient sunlight, which can brighten a room even without direct beams.

During May Gray and June Gloom, Del Mar enjoys pleasant diffused natural light during the day, as well as soft, low-angle light in the late afternoon and at sunset throughout the year. Overgrown vegetation can diminish this ambient light to the point where interiors become noticeably darker and less inviting, negatively affecting daily livability and enjoyment.

Instead of the solar system-centric Shade Study, another method, such as Useful Daylight Illuminance (UDI) or Daylight Factor (DF), could be used to measure how much natural light enters a room and whether it is bright enough to be comfortable and useful.

October 20, 2025 Item 13
3 Finally, sunlight access shouldn’t be limited only to existing solar systems. If a homeowner wants to add a new system and there’s no other reasonable place for it, and no privacy concerns, then access to sunlight should be allowed.

In summary, I respectfully ask the City to:
 Continue refining the TSVS ordinance to ensure that both direct and indirect sunlight are recognized as essential to the health, comfort, and livability of Del Mar homes.  Acknowledge the residential benefits of natural sunlight by adding language similar to Section

These refinements would strengthen the TSVS ordinance’s intent to balance solar energy, privacy, and quality of life within our community.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration,

Janet Wilson
October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: mark rittenbaum <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 9:41 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Public comment to item 13 -proposed changes to trees, scenic view and sunlight ordinance
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.

Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Thank you and city staff for all the hard work and diligence in aƩempƟng to draŌ a revised ordinance.

As disclosure, I am a Del Mar Planning Commisioner and this subject was brought before the Planning Commision prior to submission to The City Council. The thoughts and opinions shared in this leƩer are solely my personal opinions, alone.

I appreciate and concur with Guiding principle #7 and The Purpose SecƟon 23.51.010 A of the ( exisƟng and proposed) Ordinance, both of which recognize the benefits and balance between Trees, Scenic Views and and plenƟful Sunlight.

In this regard, I support that the 10 year look back period (the laƩer of 10 years or the date the property was acquired) remains unchanged.

Conversely, like many other residents, I do not support the change in definiƟon of Sunlight to include any room or rooms within a primary residence, rather than conƟnuing to limit it to the Primary Living Area ( as remains the case with Scenic Views). If this change were to occur, by definiƟon the balance between Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight would be skewed in favor of protecƟng Sunlight. Certainly the result would be lost of shade and tree canopy through required pruning, or worse the potenƟal loss of Trees. This outcome would be significantly exacerbated by the fact that the direcƟon and angle of the sun changes throughout the year, thus impacƟng mulƟple and different rooms through out the year. AƩempts to correctly document and enforce such a provision will be difficult, Ɵme consuming and liƟgious- at best.

Finally, if the definiƟon were to be expanded to include any room, it begs the quesƟons “why is Sunlight geƫng special consideraƟon ; shouldn’t Scenic Views be afforded the same expansive definiƟon?” In my view that would be a most unwelcome outcome.

Thank you for your consideraƟon.

Mark RiƩenbaum
SerpenƟne Dr
Del Mar
Sent from my iPad
October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Jennifer Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 9:47 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Terry TG. Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez RN; Dan Quirk; John Spelichprivate; Ashley Jones Subject: Red Dot for Oct 20, 2025 City Council meeting, Item 13, TSVS Ordinance 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 distinguished members of the City Council, Thank you to City Staff for all the great work on the proposed updates to the TSVS ordinance and to the Planning Commission, City Council and members of our community for the feedback and productive discussion.

I agree with the many other community members who have already done a great job articulating why the new proposed change to, “Expand Sunlight Obstruction eligibility from being just the Primary Living Area (PLA) to any affected areas within a residence” is not a change that will positively benefit our community.

Essentially, all trees within a 360-degree radius of every residence in Del Mar are at risk if they are shading any room in any residence. If allowed this change that would radically alter the careful balance Del Mar has long maintained with respect to trees, views and sunlight.

Prior to this new, proposed change in the ordinance, sunlight was protected in the primary living area (consistent with view protection) and to existing Solar Energy Systems (by the state Solar Shade Control Act). This proposed, aggressive change creates an imbalance, by prioritizing sunlight protection over both trees and scenic views (inconsistent with the City Council-approved guiding principles) and would likely ignite new neighbor disputes and burden staff workload. Moreover, it greatly threatens our Community Plan (Chapter 23.50, Trees) and is incompatible with our Design Review Ordinance and Design Guidelines which recognize the importance of using tees and other landscaping to complement building elevations, soften the appearance of structures, and provide the passive cooling that benefits our quality of life.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Anderson
Serpentine Drive
October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Bill Ritman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 11:04 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Judy Hunt; shirli weiss; [email protected]
Subject: Red Dot # 13
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.

Six homeowners at Del Mar Woods have been paying approximately $7,000 per year for trimming trees that have been blocking our views. The new ordinance should include a provision that the tree owners, from past mediations, should pay for the trimming instead of the homeowners whose views have been blocked. This situation has been a financial burden and very unfair.

Lori Ritman (858) 735-7964
Judy Hunt
October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Bill Ritman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 11:39 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: shirli weiss; 'Marilyn Hanes'; Judy Hunt
Subject: Red Dot # 13
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.

Sorry for this error.

Kindly correct our previous email as the obligations to pay for the tree trimming resulted from the adoption of a resolution and not from a mediation. Kindly correct our previous email to read (in the entirety) as follows:

Six homeowners at Del Mar Woods have been paying approximately $7,000 per year for trimming trees that have been blocking our views. The new ordinance should include a provision that the tree owners, from the adoption of a city resolution, should pay for the trimming instead of the homeowners whose views have been blocked. In other words, we would like, from this day forward, for the owner of the trees (that are blocking views) pay for trimming. In the past this has been very unfair.

Lori Ritman (858) 735-7964
Judy Hunt
October 20, 2025 Item 13
Sheila Friedlander
October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Gloria Sandvik <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 11:37 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot/Tree Ordinance/Views
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 and Honorable City Council
From:Gloria Sandvik
Re: Red Dot: TSVS Ordinance/ (A25-001)
Date:Monday, October 20
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
If one takes a flight over the North Coast cities in the SD region, one is struck by the unique tree canopy in Del Mar.

This feature of the city has been sustained over time by the Community Plan and the ordinances that have guided it’s implementation.

The recent revision to the TSVS(A25-001) threatens this unique canopy that provides extraordinary and unique beauty, desirable shade, a unique habitat for wildlife, and carbon absorption.

Please reconsider the inclusion of the expansion of sunlight obstruction eligibility clause of this ordinance.

Thank you,
Gloria Sandvik
Crest Road
Del Mar, CA
October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Gloria Sandvik <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 11:38 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot/Tree Ordinance/Views
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.

To: Honorable City Council
From:Gloria Sandvik
Re: Red Dot: Tree Ordinance
Date:Monday, October 20
Dear Council Members,
If one takes a 30,000 degree of the North Coast ciƟes on the SD region, one is struck by one thing. The tree canopy in Del Mar disƟnguishes it from all of the others. This unique feature of the city has been sustained over Ɵme by the Community Plan and the ordinances that have guided its implementaƟon.

The recent revision
Sent from my iPhone
October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 10:35 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Terry Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk; John Spelich; Matt Bator; Ashley Jones Subject: Public Comment on Item 13: TSVS 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:

Kindly add the following email to the public record and the City Council packet for today’s Item 13.

Thank you.

Shirli Weiss
Dear Honorable Mayor Gaasterland and Distinguished City Council Members:

Re: Oct. 20, 2025 City Council Meeting, Item 13: proposed TSVS Amendments My name is Shirli Weiss and I am a longtime resident of Del Mar.

I have personal experience with the current TSVS ordinance, having gone thru the process twice to finally regain my view for property I own at Del Mar Woods, and I have also helped residents there to do so.

I would like to comment on two sections of the proposed TSVS amendments and urge a change to one section.

First, thank you to the Planning Commission, Matt Bator and the other members on City Staff and the City Counsel for the countless hours they have spent on thoughtful consideration of this ordinance. Besides its people, scenic views, trees and sunlight are the City’s most precious and spiritual assets, worth all the time spent to use experience with the ordinance to better balance interests and bring both the process and the outcomes better in line with fairness and the City’s values.

My comments relate to two sections(cut and pasted further below): 23.51.090, subsection C: Allocation of Costs and Procedures for the Payment of Restorative Action Work and 23.51.140: Limitations.

Comment on Proposed Sections

23.51.090, subsection C
This proposed subsection states that the tree owner whose trees have been determined to have unreasonably obstructed the applicant’s views, pay for ongoing maintenance following initial restoration. This subsection corrects a significant injustice baked into the current ordinance. Under the current ordinance, the applicant, whose views are being unreasonably blocked has been obliged to pay the cost of ongoing maintenance. This has always been grossly unfair and has also had unintended consequences. Tree owners who unreasonably blocked views could see it was in their interests to force applicants to go thru the process because even if the tree owner lost, he would be able to shift the cost of ongoing maintenance to the applicant. This discouraged any settlement and (I can tell you from personal experience) tended to cause tree owners to decline compromise and rewarded them for unreasonable obstruction. This injustice is corrected in the proposed version of 23.51.090, subsection C (which I support).

The problem is with proposed section 23.51.140: Limitations. That section could be construed to prevent application of the cost shifting-for-maintenance accomplished by proposed subsection 23.51.090, subsection C to people who successfully obtained a determination of unreasonable obstruction from the Planning Commission or on appeal in the past, before the amendments are adopted.

This would be unfair. The proposed cost shifting change should apply to all future ongoing maintenance where an applicant has obtained a determination of unreasonable obstruction. This would not make the October 20, 2025 Item 13
2 statute “retroactive.” Retroactive application would be if the tree owner were asked to reimburse applicants for past costs. I am not suggesting that change. I propose only that the proposed “limitations” subsection be clarified to make cost shifting applicable to future maintenance costs incurred to maintain the recovered views of successful applicants who, prior to the adoption of the amended ordinance, obtained a determination that their views had been unreasonably obstructed. Otherwise, the unfairness of the current statute (successful applicant pays cost of maintenance)would be perpetuated as to them resulting in a continuing injustice.

In the case of Del Mar Woods residents and owners, as in-person statements at prior City Council hearings showed, successful past applicants who obtained a determination that their views were unreasonably blocked by Torey Pacific Corporation (the Staver family) have paid the Corporation over $70,000 thus far to maintain their recovered views. ( Notably, part of tree trimming for views has also been necessary to reduce fire hazards which TPC should be doing anyway, so TPC get an additional free ride for that). Although property values have increased, most of the residents paying TPC are elderly retired owners who purchased their units long ago. Reimbursing TPC for periodic maintenance of views that it unreasonably obstructed is burdensome and unfair.

I respectfully request that the City Council consider changing proposed section 23.51.140 Limitations to read as follows:

Where an Applicant has received a determination by City Resolution that a tree owner has unreasonably obstructed views or sunlight prior to the adoption of these amendments to this ordinance, then following the effective date of this ordinance, the tree owner shall be responsible for 100% of the costs of ongoing maintenance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, tt is not the intent of the City in adopting this Chapter to affect obligations imposed by an existing recorded easement or a valid pre-existing covenant or agreement between private parties.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully Submitted,
Shirli Weiss
551 Stratford Ct.

Pertinent Proposed sections

23.51.090 Allocation of Costs and Procedures for the Payment of Restorative Action Work.

C. Responsibility for Costs of Ongoing Maintenance. The Tree Owner shall pay one hundred percent (100%) of all costs associated with any ongoing maintenance of the Subject Tree(s) required by the Restorative Action plan approved by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, whether or not the Applicant paid any or all of the costs for the initial Restorative Action work.

23.51.140 Limitations.

A. It is not the intent of the City in adopting this Chapter to affect obligations imposed by an existing easement or a valid pre-existing covenant or agreement between private parties.

Shirli Fabbri Weiss
Retired Partner
M +1 858 449 4850
October 20, 2025 Item 13
3 [email protected]
DLA Piper LLP (US)
October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Holly Hermanson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 12:50 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 13 Monday meeting
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.

This is to convey that as a realtor since 2004 as well as living in the area since 1989, I do believe and agree that having sunlight in all rooms(not just primary living area) is important to people and does contribute to value of their homes.

Thank you.

Holly Hermanson
Pacific Sothebys Intl.

October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: ppreston9 <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 10:39 AM
To: City Hall Mail Box
Subject: Fwd: Comments re: Proposed changes to Del Mar's Trees/Scenic Views/Sunlight regulations
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 DM Council
We have major concerns regarding the proposed changes to DM tree/scenic views and sunlight regulations. Having lived here on Seaview Ave for 26 years, we have been through many cycles of working with the city and neighbors regarding most trees near and on our property including the unique Torrey Pine.

We believe Del Mar is a unique, standout coastal town because of the conservation efforts of city council and Del Mar citizens over the past 67 years. We have been on both sides of the protect view/protect trees/compromise with neighbors above and below us over the past 26 years. Not gonna lie, at times that has been painful, but most outcomes benefited everyone involved. Maintaining the integrity of the Torreys around us was always a priority.

Perhaps newer citizens to the community are not aware that "lacing" the Torrey Pines (thinning of branches) by an experienced arborist helps with views and sunlight. It really is effective on many levels while honoring the fact that Torreys only grow in a two places in the world and Del Mar is one of those places.

While we agree with removing branches or a tree that might be endangering the structure of a home is necessary, we believe the above change to the current regulations would radically increase individual people's ability to eradicate the beautiful Torrey Pine trees for which Del Mar is known We also believe this would sterilize the landscape of Del Mar to resemble other wall to wall structured scapes of most other southern California coastal towns.

Thank you for your attention and time!
Sincerely,
October 20, 2025 Item 13
2 Patty and Bob Preston
October 20, 2025 Item 13
October 20, 2025
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:

As a resident of Del Mar for 42 years I urge you to please vote NO to expanding sunlight obstruction eligibility from being just Primary Living Area to any affected areas within a residence.

This change would be a major threat to our Community Plan.

Thank you,
Udo Wahn, M.D
Stratford Court
Del Mar
October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Jennifer Johns <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 9:05 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Support of Del Mar's Updated Trees, Scenic Views and Sunshine Ordinance Update 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 Del Mar City Council Members,
I am writing to express my support for the City's proposed ordinance update to balance trees, scenic views and sunshine. The proposed ordinance update reflects a thoughtful and fair approach to maintaining Del Mar's natural beauty while respecting the enjoyment of our homes and neighborhoods.

As a longtime resident who has lived in several areas of Del Mar over the years, I appreciate the City's attention to this issue and your continued commitment to our community's character and quality of life.

Jen
Jen Johns
7 th Street Resident
P: 858.414.5686
E: [email protected]
October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Ingrid Willsey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 11:52 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: AKA RED DOT for tonights Meeting 0ct 20th
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.

IX. PUBLIC HEARING 13. Re-Introduction of an Ordinance to Amend Municipal Code Chapter 23.50 and Repeal and Replace Chapter 23.51 Related to Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Regulations (A25-001) Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council introduce an Ordinance (Attachment A) to: 1) Repeal and replace the City’s Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight (TSVS) regulations within Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 23.51 and 2) Amend related code sections of the City’s Tree regulations within DMMC Chapter 23.50 (A25-001). Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-4, 401-9 X. C RE Item for todays meeting Monday Oct 20
While appreciating the attention to the tree and sunlight ordinance -- it is unclear as to what is being discussed at the meeting tonight. Is the council voting on this ordinance or are they asking to introduce this ordinance?
It would be helpful to have a comparison of the old ordinance available to compare to the new ordinance as to how this might be different or how the changes would improve the current ordinance.. similar as to when we vote on ballat propositions.

We are requesting that additonal time be given to allow for the citizens of Del Mar to further understand the proposed new ordiance and its impact. Please provide a point by point comparison between the current ordinance and the proposed new ordinance.

Sincerely
Ingrid Willsey
Stephnaie Stolaz-Fantiono
Mitch Brean
Del Mar Residents
October 20, 2025 Item 13
20 October 2025
Not understanding why today’s meeting is closed to the public when an important issue affecting the quality of life in our town is being discussed (by whom?). ??
To The Del Ma City Council:

Karen and I moved to Del Mar after a three-year period of life in Japan.

Caring for the natural environment had been one of the gifts of life received there.

When we purchased a dwelling here, elderly neighbors recruited us to participate in the frequent meetings of a community effort to develop a Del Mar plan, with the purpose of heading off or completely stopping the kinds of exploitation that had already occurred marred other coastal towns around Monterey.

It took roughly a year, but an admirable document arose, one that has cast a beneficent influence over our town for more than 5 decades.

We now find ourselves in a circumstance that tolerates, even favors the kinds of exploitation that the Plan held at bay for half a century.

The pleasures of living in Del Mar arose out of and have remained vibrant because unnecessary exploitation with monetary has been resisted.

The community is already attempting to deal with the deeply troublesome issue of the eroding sand cliffs at the ocean’s edge.

Perhaps the purveyors of the destructive impact of the current initiative are hoping to slip under the noise when those of us who care about the unique, the environmentally twisted Torrey pines – themselves a precious resource – are otherwise occupied.

Roger and Karen Reynolds
624 Serpentine Dr.

Del Mar CA 92014
October 20, 2025 Item 13

Del Mar City CouncilOctober 20, 2025

Del Mar City Council
October 20, 2025