1 Robert Silva
From: ulla rang <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2025 8:23 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 8, City Council meeting Nov 17, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear CIty Council,
Thank you for so thoroughly going through the updating of TSVS and making sure it actually gets an upgrade (and not a downgrade). However, I didn't see anything in Attachment A in regards to a ruling running with the land. I sincerely hope that any TSVS decision will stand and run with the land(s) (both for view house and tree house regardless of owner). If it does not run with the land, the same tree may come up over and over again as homes change owners. The TSVS decisions have to be protected.
And please, do not ever bring up hedges, now or later. There is nothing special or unique about hedges that make them require their own class. They should just go with, and be included, with all other plants and trees in the TSVS ordinance.
Thank you for all that you do.
Sincerely,
Camilla Rang
November 17, 2025 Item 8
1 Robert Silva
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 3:42 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Matt Bator; Ashley Jones; Terry Gaasterland; John Spelich; Dan Quirk; Tracy Martinez Subject: City Council Meeting - Item 8 - TSVS Update Ordinance Adoption 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 have two comments about Item 8 - TSVS Update Ordinance Adoption.
1. In section 3.51.010(A)(2)(c) — Is the word "dependance" misspelled? Should it be "dependence"?
2. Regarding reincorporating "Run with the Land"
Our CURRENT ordinance, which does “Run with the Land”, refers to it in two places:
23.51.040 - Procedure.
H. The Conditions of Restorative Action and required term of maintenance (if deemed appropriate) imposed by the Planning Commission may be recorded in a covenant against the deed for the property on which the Subject Tree is located. If required, the covenant shall run with the land to help guarantee permanent preservation of preexisting Scenic Views and/or Sunlight.
23.51.070 - Hierarchy of Restorative Actions.
A. Restorative Action may include additional written conditions (including ongoing maintenance), and directions as to appropriate timing of such actions, and may be made to run with the land and apply to successors in interest.
The PENDING ordinance has 23.51.080 adjusted :
23.51.080 Ongoing Maintenance
If ongoing maintenance is required by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, as part of the Restorative Action work to be performed, then such ongoing maintenance shall be performed according to the time schedule (e.g., annually, biannually, etc.) established by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal. On each such occasion that ongoing maintenance is scheduled to occur, the procedures set forth in Section 23.51.090(E) of this Chapter shall apply.
The Conditions of Restorative Action and required term of maintenance (if deemed appropriate) imposed by the Planning Commission may be recorded in a covenant against the deed for the property on which the Subject Tree is located. If required, the covenant shall run with the land to help guarantee permanent preservation of preexisting Scenic Views and/or Sunlight.
However, 23.51.010(B)(3) was not adjusted accordingly:
23.51.010 Purpose and Application of Chapter
B. Application
3. A decision by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, that an Obstruction of Scenic Views and/or Sunlight has occurred, and any associated November 17, 2025 Item 8
2 Restorative Action, is specific to the Applicant and does not run with the land.
Any orders issued by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, for ongoing maintenance of the Subject Tree are not binding on subsequent property owners and shall terminate with the transfer of property title. This paragraph does not apply when property title is transferred due to inheritance.
These two sections should be in sync.
Also, doesn't it make sense that the new ordinance also include this: and apply to successors in interest?
Thank you,
Janet Wilson
November 17, 2025 Item 8
City of Del Mar
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Matt Bator, AICP, Principal Planner
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: November 17, 2025
SUBJECT: Staff Red Dot for Item 8: Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend Municipal Code Chapter 23.50 and Repeal and Replace Chapter 23.51 Related to Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight (TSVS) Regulations (A25-001) In response to “red dot” correspondence received regarding Item 8 on the City Council’s meeting agenda, staff recommends the City Council include the following minor alteration to proposed subsection 23.51.010(B)(3) when adopting the subject Ordinance. For the purposes of this memo, text proposed for removal is shown as strike-through and added text is underlined.
A decision by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, that an Obstruction of Scenic Views and/or Sunlight has occurred, and any associated Restorative Action, is specific to the Applicant. and does not run with the land. Any orders issued by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, for ongoing maintenance of the Subject Tree are not binding on subsequent property owners and shall terminate with the transfer of property title, unless determined otherwise in accordance with DMMC Section
23.51.080(D). This paragraph does not apply when property title is transferred due to inheritance.
November 17, 2025 Item 8
November 17, 2025 Item 9
November 16, 2025
RE: Encroachment Permit EP25-075
Send via email to: [email protected]
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers:
We reside at 1661 Luneta Drive, directly below the applicant at 1639 Luneta Drive. We write in support of granting the encroachment permit and to express our significant concerns regarding the potential safety hazards should the permit not be approved.
It is somewhat ironic that the Council will also be considering Item #4: Award of Construction Contract and Related Task Orders for the Jimmy Durante Boulevard Bluff Stabilization Project. This item highlights precisely why we are concerned about any changes to the existing water-flow patterns above our property. Any alteration to the historic drainage could place our home and the hillside that stabilizes it at risk. If the City were to require removal of the encroachment, it is entirely foreseeable that this could result in the need for yet another bluffstabilization effort, in addition to potential costs associated with damage to our home.
The existing encroachment provides a clear public benefit by maintaining proper water flow and directing runoff from Luneta Drive away from—rather than through—our property.
Changing this configuration would inevitably result in damage to our home.
The Notice of Public Hearing states that, under California Government Code §65009, any challenge to the proposed action must be raised prior to or at the public hearing. Accordingly, please consider this letter as our formal notice that we would hold the City responsible for any damages resulting from altered flowlines above our home.
We have attached photographs for your reference.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Terri and Galen Pavelko
November 17, 2025 Item 9
November 17, 2025 Item 9
November 17, 2025 Item 9
November 17, 2025 Item 9
November 17, 2025 Item 9
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA QUESTIONS
November 17, 2025
Item 5 - Approval of Agreements for As-Needed Civil Engineering, Traffic Engineering, Dry Utility Engineering, Architectural Services, Seawall Engineering, and Development Review Services
1. The as-needed has a contract with KCM but no contract with Utility Specialists. What is the reason for this?
Response: When the City completed a recent as-needed engineering services RFP, which included electrical engineering and related specialty dry utility services, Utility Specialists did not submit a proposal. Due to a variety of reasons (none of which were specific to Del Mar or our Undergrounding Project) they explained to staff that they are only available to complete their current task orders for 1A, X1A, and 1B. KCM Group, who we now use as a sub-contractor through Utility Specialists, did submit a proposal and we will be contracting with them directly moving forward.
Item 10 - Camino Del Mar Bridge Replacement Project Update and Eighth Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Kleinfelder, Inc.
1. Would it be possible to hear tomorrow an overview of the reasons for the increases in the estimated construction cost from May 6, 2024 to November 17, 2025?
Table 1 May 6, 2024
Table 4 November 17, 2025
Response: The $80 million estimated construction phase cost included in the agenda report represents the total anticipated future spending. This includes a construction estimate increase from $60 million (presented in May 2024) to $64 million. This increase November 17, 2025 Item 5 and Item 10
is primarily due to the extended construction duration, recent low-bid results, price escalations, and the fully defined scope of work as now understood by the final design.
In addition, the $80 million estimated construction phase cost presented in the agenda report includes an increase in the soft costs. Soft costs include construction management and inspection, third party testing of materials supplied, engineering support during construction, staff time, and contingency for change orders and other unforeseen costs during construction. The City had previously carried forward lower assumptions that staff recommends increasing to the fully allowable percentages that would be reimbursable through the federal funding. Staff has initiated discussions with Caltrans to program project funding; this effort sets the upper limit, and it is recommended that we reserve the full amount that is available. The actual costs for the construction management and engineering services during construction are unknown at this time.
2. Is today's estimated TOTAL $80,000,000 + 225,000 + 2,000,000 + 3,000,000 = $85,225,000? If so, this would be an increase of $12,725,000 in estimated TOTAL cost since May 2024 (17.6%), yes?
Response: You are correct to add these costs to get the total project cost. Added a column to previously provided table to show total project cost.
The cost to design and prepare the project for bid is approximately $5.4 million. These costs are all eligible for federal reimbursement at 88.53% with a local match of 11.47%.
Local match for pre-construction costs has been fulfilled by grants.
Task 2021 2023 5/6/24 City
Council
Update
11/17/25
City
Council
Update
Rehabilitation Analysis $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 Preliminary
Engineering/Environmental
$2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
Final Design $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,400,000 Construction $40,000,000 $51,500,000 $60,000,000 $64,000,000 Other Costs During
Construction
$4,775,000 $7,275,000 $7,275,000 $16,000,000
TOTAL $50,000,000 $64,000,000 $72,500,000 $85,625,000
November 17, 2025 Item 5 and Item 10