Del Mar City Council Special Meeting Agenda
Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
March 20, 2023 City Council Special Meeting
INFORMATION RECEIVED
AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA
WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)
A Cautionary Tale about the CVPP
By Ken Olson 3/16/23
This may be useful only as a cautionary tale. One property owner has received these 10 speculative CVPP citations based on speculative complaints.
Citation CVPP
Violation Status Considerations
A March
2019 8.C. City’s findings were overruled by superior court in Sept. 2022. The court also cited 2 instances of the City’s
improper reading of the CVPP and six
instances of the Council exceeding its
authority.
The court found the property owner
guilty of having maintained 4 open
space trees mistakenly planted in 1982,
12 years before he bought the property,
even though the CVPP forbids removal.
Property owner maintains that the
proposed RAP is not legally sound.
City must vacate resolution 2019-55 in
public meetings.
City must deal with its false statements to
the court regarding 8.D.
Open issue: How is a nonnative tree
unlawful in the Open Space?
The $200 fine has been paid.
Property owner feels abused.
B
March
2019 8.D.
C
March
2019
Public
nuisance
The public nuisance citation seems
absurd under California law.
D March
2022 8.C.
Property owner reluctantly removed the
legal hedge under City’s order and
warning of impending $1000/day fines.
8.C. and public nuisance citations are not
yet closed in City records.
The $700 fine has been paid. This amount
is in excess of that allowed by the DMMC.
Property owner feels abused.
E March
2022 8.D. Charge withdrawn by City duringdiscussion before hearing officer.
F March
2022
Public
nuisance
The public nuisance citation seems
absurd under California law.
G Feb.
2023
8.C. The city misreads the CVPP.
The tree was not planted.
According to the court’s ruling in Sept.
2022 there is no height violation.
Did anybody ever inform the Code
Enforcement Officer of the court’s 9/22
statements about 8.C.?
The public nuisance citation seems
absurd under California law.
Citation is being contested.
The $2000 fine has been paid. This amount
is in excess of that allowed by the DMMC.
Property owner feels abused.
H Feb.
2023
Public
nuisance
I March
2023
8.C.
K
March
2023
Public
nuisance
Fines and fees imposed by the City total $2900 in fines plus fees of $_____. 1 March 20, 2023 Item III.A Closed Session
1 A homeowner’s views on 2 CVPP zoning ordinances
By Ken Olson 3/18/23
1. Regarding paragraph 8.C. text from 1980 CVPP
Landscape limitations shall insure that no tree is planted which, upon maturity, would exceed five feet (5’) above the maximum roof elevation allowed on that lot, except for the Torrey Pine tree.
Purpose of this ordinance text per the City in 2023: “to preserve view corridors.” City interpretation in 2019: In Resolution 2019-55, the City Council allows trees and hedges provided they remain below the height limit and preserve the view corridors
Purpose of ordinance per Property owner: “to preserve view corridors.” Purpose is not to prevent planting. This would place undue burdens on residents, malcontent neighbors, code enforcement staff, and city government.
Superior Court judge, August 2022 (paraphrased here): Landscape area trees cannot exceed height limit. If they do, it’s a code violation. If they don’t, it’s not.
Note that this code section allows a tree to impinge on the view corridors if it preexisted the CVPP or if it was naturally seeded -- not planted. Such incursions are contradictory to the required preservation of view corridors and likely would be handled under the TSV regulations.
Note that on Lot 9 portions of the raw land are at higher elevations than the tree height limit. So a one-foot tall tree there is a code violation.
2. Regarding paragraph 8.D. text from 1980 CVPP
Open Space Area. All private land outside the building and landscape limits (shown on the precise architectural plan) shall remain undeveloped for all time as an open space overlay district. Said district shall be composed of the property owners within the Carmel Valley Precise Plan district. Said owners will be responsible to preserve and protect said lands from fire and excessive erosion and vandalism as required. Access to said lands shall be limited to the drainage and street easements shown on the Precise Plan. Landscaping shall be limited to an informal planting of native plants normally found in the coastal scrub zone.
Irrigation shall be limited to drip irrigation. No signs, fences or other structures shall be allowed, except as may be required for drainage and erosion control. Trails shall be limited to the maintenance access areas as shown on the Precise Plan. 1 March 20, 2023 Item III.B Closed Session
2 Purpose of this ordinance text per City of Del Mar: To protect and preserve the open space. The property owner agrees.
Questions and comments by property owner: What is an open space overlay district composed of the property owners? Has it ever existed? Do we need to create it? Are the property owners jointly responsible for protecting and preserving the open space or is each property owner responsible for protecting and preserving one lot?
The ordinance limits landscaping in the Open Space to native plants and irrigation.
How does this limitation get interpreted as outlawing nonnative plants that are propagated by winds and birds? The text limits landscaping activity, not natural processes.
2 March 20, 2023 Item III.B Closed Session