Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda
Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
November 3, 2025 City Council Meeting
INFORMATION RECEIVED
AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA
WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 3:00 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Terry Gaasterland; John Spelich; Dan Quirk; Tracy Martinez; Janet Wilson Subject: City Council Meeting - Item 10 - TSVS Ordinance Updates 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,
Over the last 23 years, only 31 TSVS applications have been submitted, averaging fewer than two per year. With roughly 2,600 homes in Del Mar, that means only 0.077% of households apply, and even fewer reach the Planning Commission. We’re talking about less than one-tenth of one percent of homes.
That’s a remarkably small number. Why? Because most neighbors are, in fact, neighborly. They work together and find reasonable compromises. When they can’t agree, one side often accepts the loss rather than start a process that feels formal, intimidating, and expensive.
There are 27 “View and Sunlight” cities used as references for this ordinance. Of those, 21 charge no application fee at all. Among the six that do, Del Mar’s $6,550 fee is the second highest. Many residents simply can’t afford that, and these new procedural requirements will make things even harder.
Except for Section 23.51.090 – Allocation of Costs and Restorative Action Procedures, which is a sensible and long-overdue improvement, many unnecessary application hurdles are being added:
Before photographs for view claims — An applicant may not have a photo or may have lost it for unforeseen reasons. “Documentable evidence” is already the legal standard; mandating a specific form of proof is unnecessary and may not hold up in court. No other city requires this. Shade studies for sunlight claims — Appropriate for solar systems but not for ordinary indoor lighting needs. They add cost and complexity, and there are better ways to assess indirect lighting inside a home. No other city requires this.
Tree surveys required upfront — Expensive and may not even be necessary depending on the vegetation type or scope. No other city requires this.
I’ve heard repeatedly that these changes are intended to make staff’s job easier by ensuring that everything they might need is readily available. However, this approach prioritizes administrative convenience over an applicant’s expertise, time, and financial cost. A more balanced solution would November 3, 2025 Item 10
2 be to revise the language so that these studies and materials may be requested by the Planning Director as needed, rather than being automatically required.
I also understand that the TSVS staff report presented to the Planning Commission will include a definitive recommendation, allowing the Commission to make their decision without needing to visit the site! This approach would increase staff's workload, putting it in conflict with the guiding principles established for this rewrite. More importantly, site visits by final decision-makers are a vital part of any well-informed and balanced decision-making process.
Finally, revising the ordinance to state that TSVS decisions will not run with the land, instead of continuing the current standard that they may run with the land, does not make sense. A TSVS decision relates to the property, not the owner. Most other cities allow decisions to run with the land, and no other city has an inheritance-based exception.
The City’s role is to ensure fairness and accessibility for residents, not to make participation more difficult for those unfamiliar with city procedures.
Please consider:
Simplify the application process: Allow supporting materials to be requested by the Planning Director when necessary, rather than automatically required. Maintain site visits: The Planning Commission should continue visiting sites instead of relying solely on staff reports.
Keep decisions running with the land: Continue the current standard. If reversed, no exceptions should be based on inheritance.
As Councilmember Quirk noted during the last meeting, this ordinance can always be refined later, but making these minor adjustments now will help streamline the process, make it fairer, and make it less intimidating for applicants.
Let’s get this done so the City can focus its time and resources on issues that have a broader impact on the community.
Thank you,
Janet Wilson
November 3, 2025 Item 10
1 Robert Silva
From: ulla rang <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 6:53 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 10, Nov 3, 2025 City Council meeting
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
I strongly support the Red Dot sent in by Janet Wilson, no need to repeat everything here again. She summarized all the good and bad with the suggested amendments. Please consider her suggestions thoroughly.
I am pretty sure I know why Matt Bater wants to change the "run with the land". It was a case very close to where I live and that I was involved with as one of two home owners on the applicant side (only one can apply, but several neighbors that will benefit can privately share the application cost) . The other house owner surprisingly sold their house very soon after the case was decided in their favor. Yes, that was not great, but it has only happened once in all these cases. Most home owners are not like that, and I am still around, living in the same house, benefitting from that same TSVS decisions that I was part of paying the costs for. So please let Mr Bater know that it was not for nothing. Please take this information into consideration and let the decision run with the land. It is very common (from what I hear) that several neighbors might share the application fee despite only one can be on the actual application. So even if that house owner sell soon thereafter (which is super rare), the other neighbors that benefited and that was part of the application costs, still live in the area and still benefit. It would be a nightmare for me to have to start all over again together with that new home owner to fight that 80 foot tall, one block long row of Monterrey cypress that is taking everyone's view that live north of last block on 9th street.. All we got from that very expensive and very mentally exhausting TSVS battle was to get to keep "a window" of view between two of the many cypresses. Don't take that away.
Another important point that Ms. Wilson brought up was that the Planning Commission seemingly no longer will have to even go visit the site before deciding the case, just following the staff's recommendation. Then what is the point of even having it go to the Planning Commission for a "decision" if they simply just function as a proxy for the TSVS staff? We could might as well cut them out of the decision making if they are not really making a decision anyway, just putting their stamp on a paper that is already decided. Nah, that doesn't hold up. The planning department should definitely and absolutely be more involved in the decision. The least they can do is to go visit the site.
Sincerely,
Camilla Rang
November 3, 2025 Item 10
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: ulla rang <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 5:15 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 10, Nov 3, 2025, CIty Council meeting
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear CIty Council,
I wanted to follow up and clarify the problems we, the people, will run into if a TSVS decision does NOT run with the land.
Since there can only be ONE lead applicant per TSVS application and neighbors cannot officially apply together (exception Del Mar Woods), but many neighbors' views are blocked by the same situation, it is not uncommon that these neighbors go together and split the cost of both the application, mediation, not to mention the exhausting letter writing, phone conversations and visits before one can even get to the TSVS application. When that application has been ruled in favor of the lead applicant, there are many homes and neighbors that benefitted and that were involved. If the TSVS decision does NOT run with the land, all these neighbors will have to start all over again, both with costs and energy, if the lead applicant sell their home. It will be a nightmare!
And what if the person on the other end sells and moves? If the view is not protected with the TSVS decision and "running with the land", does that mean that the first applicant have to make a new TSVS application against the new owner?
The TSVS decision has to stay and run with the land(s), it's the only sane thing, or there will be so many back and forths as soon as homes change owners, and many people will be unfairly negatively affected who have shared the costs of the application.
Personally, I was part of the TSVS application in regards to the 60 foot tall growth of Monterrey Cypresses that was/is grown as a wall all along the last block of 9th street. Officially I was not allowed to be on the application, but I paid half of everything, the application, the mediation (which I also attended, but it went nowhere and the other side refused to share the cost). To share theTSVS costs among neighbors is not uncommon, therefore, the only fair thing is to let the decision stand and run with the land.
The other thing I would appreciate if you could discuss a little more is the question of primary view location and sunshine location being required to be the same or different. What does it mean with “only one location for view or sunshine”. Only one location per application? I'm not sure I follow. So if you have a neighbor that is blocking both your view with letting one tree grow up west of you, and also letting another tree grow right into your house so you can't see out and the room is completely dark on the, let's say the north side, you would have to fill out TWO TSVS applications if the neighbor refuses to trim their trees? That makes no sense (believe me, I have been in that situation in regards to view and light but solved without having to go to TSVS, but what if it hadn't worked out?).Please give this another thought.
November 3, 2025 Item 10
2 Thank you for your very hard work. Much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Camilla Rang
November 3, 2025 Item 10
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Juliana Maxey-Allison <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 3:33 PM
To: Terry TG. Gaasterland <[email protected]>; Dan Quirk <[email protected]>; Tracy Martinez <[email protected]>; John Spelich <[email protected]> Cc: Ashley Jones <[email protected]>
Subject: Revised TSVS
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 Gaasterland, City Council members Quirk, Martinez Spinach:
Noting that trees are an important part of the singular ambiance of Del Mar and should be preserved via trimming rather then being chopped down, the revised version of possible changes to TSVS achieved a fair compromise to both preserve trees and residents' rights to views and sunlight. Please approve this most recent revision.
Julie Maxey-Allison
10 Street
November 3, 2025 Item 10
November 1, 2025
Mayor & City Councilmembers
City of Del Mar
November 3, 2025 Council Docket
RE: Item #10; Red Dot—TSVS Ordinance Amendments
Dear Mayor Gaasterland and City Councilmembers:
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 are very pleased that the Council voted to move forward with the recent amendments from the October 20 Council meeting, including restricting the definition of sunlight to the PLA, and reducing the radius to 30 ft. from a residence’s window experiencing 50%+ sunlight blockage. As we discussed previously, significant sunlight blockage to a neighboring window is most likely to be caused by dense foliage in close proximity—such as a hedge. Therefore, a distance of 30 ft. is a much more logical and appropriate span than a 300 ft. radius, which is more suited for trees in the distance that could block a scenic view. In addition, these changes that the Council approved more accurately reflect 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.
As stated previously, we also concur with the other recent amendments approved by the Council, including the decision to maintain the 10-year look back period, which will have less of an impact on Del Mar’s tree canopy, at a time when we are losing many of our Torrey Pines to diseases, extreme weather events, and mistreatment. We also 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-certified arborist, and requires that “decision makers” must consider replacing any tree that has been removed due to the TSVS ordinance.
Lastly, we believe that a hedge ordinance or any additional efforts to regulate hedges, must consider not only sunlight blockage, but also buffering from street traffic, public safety and privacy needs. If the Council does not wish to move forward with a hedge height ordinance, which is in sync with the Planning Commission’s recommendations, perhaps these issues could be addressed elsewhere in the municipal code, and be enforced on a complaints-only basis, consistent with City policy.
In closing, we very much appreciate all the work that the Council liaisons, Matt Bator, and other City staff members have contributed to get us to this final version of the TSVS ordinance. We strongly urge you to move forward in adopting the ordinance as it now stands.
Best Regards,
Richard & Dolores Davies Jamison
Amy Isackson Pine Needles Drive
November 3, 2025 Item 10
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
Catherine & Peter Cramton
Highland Avenue
Janet Wilson & Nigel Hook
Jodi’s Street
Ron & Susan Taylor
Crest Road
John Goodkind
Forest Way
Mara Bickett
Van Dyke Avenue
Linda & Frank Chisari
Crest Road
Valerie Dufort & Sudeepto Roy
Klish Way
Pat Bone
Culebra Street
Sheila & Michael Sharpe
15th Street
Art Olson & Shirley King
Avenida Primavera
Judy & Marc Schuckit
Kalamath Street
Phi & Eric Gerber
Pine Needles Drive
Penny & Buck Abell
Serpentine Drive
Katherine Sohn
26th Street
Scott & Lisa Renner
Via Alta
Wendy & John Ross
Klish Way
Ari & Nicole Gesher
Crest Road
Sandy & Bram Dijkstra
Rimini Road
November 3, 2025 Item 10
Alice Brown
Avenida Primavera
Doug & Janette Shelton
Rimini Road
John & Gail Graybill
15th Street
Jason Dempsey
Crest Road
Lucy Taylor
15th Street
November 3, 2025 Item 10
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Kerridge, Carol <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 8:43 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: RED Dot ITEM 10...TSVS
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 and City Staff,
I'm very grateful for the plan that you have created with many residents to provide a new very important TSVS amendment. I'm writing to remind you of other future legal changes that will likely soon come before us as we plan for fire safety.
Along with the possible amendment changes, I also would like to suggest the possibility of combining these changes with the upcoming changes of the Fire Code that we have been told will be revealed soon after the new year. Those changes appear to be based on lessons learned from the devastating LA fires last January.
Last Spring, I attended an all-day seminar at the San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative and learned that homeowners' insurance costs will soon be based on risk and mitigation for homeowners, neighborhoods, and towns...all based on inspection.
I'm just wanting to make sure we are all aware of the possible larger regional picture.
Gratefully,
Carol Kerridge
November 3, 2025 Item 10
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Jennifer Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 8:59 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Terry TG. Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez RN; Dan Quirk; John Spelichprivate Cc: Ashley Jones; Matt Bator; Sarah Krietor
Subject: Red Dot for Nov 3, 2025 City Council meeting, Item 10, Introduction of 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 honorable Mayor Gaasterland and distinguished members of the City Council, Thank you to city staff, city council, planning commission and engaged members of the community for all the due diligence and discussion in coming to alignment around the latest draft of the Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight (TSVS) ordinance. We support the proposed changes to the ordinance as written as it strikes an effective balance between the preservation of trees and residents' rights to views and sunlight.
Please approve this latest update so that our staff and council can move forward on additional matters impacting our city.
Thank you in advance for all your great work.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Anderson and Mark Rittenbaum
November 3, 2025 Item 10
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 12:05 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Terry Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk; John Spelich Cc: Matt Bator
Subject: FW: November 3, 2025 Red Dot - Item 10
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Honorable Mayor and Distinguished members of the City Council:
Thank you for the time and effort you have devoted to updating the TSVS ordinance and thank you for the thoughtful revisions thus thus far. I have read the red dots of my neighbors, including Janet Wilson’s and Camilla Rang’s and the submission by the “60 Del Mar residents” for today’s meeting and have the following additions to my prior comments:
I support reducing, if at all possible, the application fee (by at least half). Having gone through the process twice (plus appeals) to regain my view at 116 Spinnaker Ct. , I can confirm that the application fee is only one of the many costs involved in the process. The City has an interest in each application and in the balancing of interests so I think the City should absorb more of the cost. The sky-high application fee will discourage meritorious applications which over time will lead overall to disproportionate unnecessary view blockage throughout the City through decisions not to enforce views because of the high cost.
“Documented” or “documentable evidence” is a preferable broader standard than “beforephotographs.”. With modern technology and available government drone footage, the past may be recreated by historic aerial footage that is reliable but not technically a “photograph.” Affidavits should also be considered, although probably given less weight. The PC should be empowered to give the evidence the weight it believes is merited.
I also think the supporting materials should be “requested and may be required” by the Planning Commission, rather than always required.
There are pros and cons regarding views running with the land. The deeds of both the applicant and tree owner would have to be documented if running with the land and disclosable in any real estate transfer. On balance I favor having a recovered view run with the land because if it is a view that the PC has deemed was unreasonably blocked, and the Tree owner should not be entitled to require successive owners to the original applicant to file new applications to recover the view they presumably paid for when purchasing the property. I may be in the minority, but I was not offended when someone recovered a view under the TSVS ordinance and then sold. The recovered view was the applicant’s right and was a feature of the property when they purchased, they should be able to pass the recovered view on to the buyer otherwise the buyer will have to go through the entire process from scratch to enforce the right.
I look forward to a proposed new hedge ordinance which I understand is under review. It should not be a one-size-fits-all, but take into consideration fire safety, height, view blockage, privacy.
Thank you again to the Planning Commission, the City Council and staff, especially Matt Bator.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirli Weiss
551 Stratford Ct.
November 3, 2025 Item 10