The limits of any retaining wall footing shall be depicted on the grading plan. The applicant shall provide a plan and profile view of the proposed retaining wall that will depict top of wall and top of footing elevations. The applicant shall use either County of San Diego Standard wall design, City of San Diego Standard Wall design, or custom design walls processed through the Building Department.
E-16 [Driveway Slope]
The Grading Plan must include a profile of the proposed driveway. The longitudinal slope must not exceed 8% within 10’ of the street. The slope must not exceed 6% within 25’ of the garage door. Between these two areas, the slope must not exceed 25%.
E-17 [Peak Runoff Mitigation]
The proposed improvements shall result in a net decrease in impervious area. If this is considered infeasible, the applicant must submit a Hydrology and Hydraulics report. The report must demonstrate that the project mitigates the increase in peak runoff through the use of acceptable LID features.
E-18 [Utility Service]
If any new or modified connections to the water or sewer mains in the public rightof-way are proposed, additional plan sets, and review fees may be required.
E-19 [Stormwater Management Plan]
The applicant must submit an updated SWMP for Standard Projects. A BMP Site Plan must be included and attached to the SWMP.
E-20 [Stormwater Compliance]
Stormwater compliance requirements are subject to change based on adoption of revisions to state and local regulations. Recent changes to the regulations include the following: revised Priority Development Project definitions, additional/revised hydromodification mitigation requirements, and increased emphasis on on-site retention/re-use. These changes could significantly impact the design, type, and size of BMPs necessary for compliance. The new regional MS4 Permit (Order No.
R9-2013-0001) was adopted May 8, 2013.
E-21 [Existing Easements]
Prior to issuance of Building Permits the applicant must provide a letter from any easement holder authorizing the proposed improvements within the existing easement.
E-22 [Material Hauling]
For material delivery vehicles equal to, or larger than two-axle, six-tire single unit truck (SU) size or larger as defined by FHWA Standards, the applicant shall submit a truck hauling route that conforms to City of Del Mar Municipal Code or to the approval of the City Engineer. A letter from the applicant confirming the intention 46 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Resolution No. 2025-XX
to use this hauling route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and the City Engineering Department, and approved, prior to the issuance of any City permits. All material hauling activities including but not limited to, adherence to the approved route, hours of operation, staging of materials, dust control and street maintenance shall be the responsibility of the applicant. All storage and office trailers will be kept off the public right-of-way. Tracking of dirt onto City streets and walks will not be allowed. The applicant must provide an approved method of cleaning tires and trimming loads on-site. Any job-related dirt and/or debris that impacts the public right-of-way shall be removed immediately. No wash down of dirt into storm drains will be allowed. All material hauling activities shall be done in accordance with applicable City ordinances and conditions of approval. Violation of such may be cause for suspension of work.
E-23 [Construction Worker Parking]
The applicant shall provide a construction-parking plan that minimizes the effect of construction worker parking in the neighborhood and shall include an estimate of the number of workers that will be present on the site during the various phases of construction and indicate where sufficient off-street parking will be utilized and identify any locations for off-site material deliveries. Said plan shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and the City Engineer prior to issuance of City permits and shall be enforced during construction. Failure to enforce the parking plan may result in suspension of the City permits.
E-24 [Site conditions]
E-24A The applicant shall restrict hours of work for the use of heavy equipment during grading and improvements between the hours of 7AM to 7PM Monday -Friday and 9 AM- 7PM Saturdays, this includes the warmup of equipment. Sunday and City holiday work is prohibited;
E-24B Any relocation or under grounding of SDG&E facilities or other utilities shall be done at the applicant’s expense;
E-24C All construction activities undertaken shall comply with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. In cases of conflict between the City’s Municipal Code, these standard conditions of approval, the governing priority shall be, to the extent legally permitted, as follows: 1) City’s Municipal Code regulations; 2) City’s General Plan; 3) Standard Conditions; and E-24D No storage of trash cans or recycling bins shall be permitted within the public right-of-way,
E-25 [Revisions to plans]
Any proposed change to the approved layout/use/activity on the site or any increase in the developed area of the site or any expansion or modification to the approved development, including changes to structures building 47 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Resolution No. 2025-XX
locations, elevations, parking allocation, or landscaping shall require that a construction change be submitted to City for review and approval.
E-26 [Survey Monuments]
E-26A The perpetuation of survey monuments is required and intended to protect both public and private property rights in accordance with federal and state law. Monument perpetuation shall be performed with every Drainage Plan and Street Improvement Plan. A land surveyor shall, upon completion of Drainage Plan, or new improvements, reset any monuments that have been destroyed due to the construction of the project and must file a postconstruction Corner Record or Record of Survey with the County Surveyor.
E-26B A hold will be placed on the final inspection for all right of way permits and other types of permits that affect survey monuments. When Engineering Department receive confirmation of the filing of the post-construction Corner Record, or from the land surveyor, the hold will be released, and final inspection can be performed.
DRB SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
DRB SC - 1: [Revised Project Plans]
Prior to Building Permit issuance, the applicant shall submit revised plans per applicant’s architect’s Red Dot correspondence dated 03-24-2025, to omit the 2 Fruitless Olive trees in the front yard, to omit the chimney projection, and revise fireplace to direct vent.
DRB SC - 2: [Revised Landscape Plans]
Prior to Building Permit issuance, the applicant shall submit revised Landscape Plan to replace the 2 Fruitless Olive trees in the front yard with a tree species not-to-exceed 15-feet-high at maturity. Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Director. If the applicant disagrees with the Planning Director’s determination and acceptability of the selected tree species, the applicant shall have the opportunity to have the Design Review Board review the revised Landscape Plan at a noticed public hearing.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 7th day of July, 2025 ____________________________
Terry Gaasterland, Mayor
City of Del Mar
48 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Resolution No. 2025-XX
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF DEL MAR
I, Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution 2025-xx, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 7th day of July, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
RECUSE:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
49 July 7, 2025 Item 16
City of Del Mar
Staff Report
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
March 26, 2025
APPLICATION: DRB24-006
REQUEST: A request for a Design Review Board Permit to remodel the exterior of an existing 1,578 square-foot, one-story residence with attached garage. Proposed improvements include:
demolishing 87 square feet of floor area from the residence and garage; demolishing rear patio cover; constructing a 689 square-foot, one-story addition with roof modifications and a new chimney; constructing a new 230 square-foot Floor Area Ratio (FAR)-exempt covered front porch; constructing a new pool and associated mechanical equipment; and installation of new exterior lighting, landscape, hardscape and site improvements.
APPLICANTS/OWNERS: Lisa Parnell, The Footer Residence Trust AGENT: Jim Sneed, Bokal and Sneed Architects
SITE LOCATION: 483 Avenida Primavera
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 299-290-04-00
COMMUNITY PLAN DESIGNATION: The Community Plan designates subject site as Low Density Residential at a density of 1-4 units per net acre. The Community Plan states that "this land use category is intended to allow a continuation of the predominately single-family residential character that has been historically developed within the Del Mar Hills area and at the north end of the beach front."
ZONE: R1-10
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 Class 1 (e) (1) (Existing Facilities), in that the Project proposes the construction of an addition to the existing residence which is less than 2,500 square feet, and further; it has been determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a Categorical Exemption are applicable (Guidelines Section 15300.2).
HOUSING IMPACT: The proposed development involves an addition/remodel to an existing single dwelling and there would be no change to the number of dwellings constructed on the lot.
Therefore, approval of the requested discretionary development applications would have no impact on the City of Del Mar’s housing supply or housing affordability. 1 March 26, 2025 Item 2
ATTACHMENT C
50 July 7, 2025 Item 16
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT: DRB24-006
March 26, 2025
BACKGROUND:
The project site is located at 483 Avenida Primavera in the R1-10 Zone. The site is developed with a one-story single-family residence with an attached garage and a rear covered patio. The existing structure is nonconforming in that the garage encroaches into the eastern side-yard setback. The lot is 8,654 square feet in area and is substandard in size, as the minimum lot size in the R1-10 Zone 10,000 square feet. Vehicle access is taken via Avenida Primavera. The topography of the site is relatively flat. Landscaping consists of a variety of medium-sized trees, ground coverings, and medium and large shrubs. Dense vegetative plantings are located on adjacent property lines.
Surrounding residences are single-family residential in character. An aerial vicinity map of the subject property is included in Exhibit A.
ANALYSIS:
Project Description
The applicant proposes to construct a 689 square-foot, one-story addition at the southeast corner of the home,perform a comprehensive remodel of the building’s exterior, and install a new pool and various site improvements. Components of the proposed project include:
• Demolishing 87 square-feet of floor area from the residence and garage (removing the portion of the garage currently located in the eastern side yard setback would abate the lot’s zoning nonconformity and therefore a Building Valuation is not required for the project); • Construction of a 230 square-foot, FAR-exempt covered front porch; • Modification of doors and windows at all elevations of the home; • Modifications to the existing roof forms that will result in an approximate two (2) foot increase in roof height;
• Installation of a standing metal seam roof;
• Construction of a new fireplace with chimney at the west elevation of the residence:
• Replacement of exterior stucco with vertical wood siding; • Construction of a new at-grade pool approximately 200 square feet. Existing 6-foot-high wood fence around the perimeter of the property would provide the required pool enclosure; • Installation of pool equipment and one (1) Air Conditioner (AC) condensing unit located on the eastern side yard;
• Construction of a built-in barbecue and counter located south of the residence; • Construction of an entryway trellis in the front yard; • Construction of new planter walls on the north and west sides of the residence; • Installation of new exterior building and landscape light fixtures; and • Installation of new landscape and hardscape improvements. 2 March 26, 2025 Item 2 51 July 7, 2025 Item 16
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT: DRB24-006
March 26, 2025
Summary of the applicant’s proposal:
Existing Living Area
Existing Garage
1,064 square feet
493 square feet
Demolished FAR 87 square feet
New FAR 689 square feet
Total Project FAR 2,159 square feet
Covered Outdoor Area exempt from FAR* 230 square feet
Total (gross) Bulk Floor Area of the Project 2,389 square feet * Measured pursuant to the structural extent of the patio or porch coverings Applicable Development Standards:
Standards R1-10 Zone Project
Min. lot size 10,000 sq.ft. 8,654 sq.ft.
Front yard setback 20 ft. 20 ft.
Rear yard setback 25 ft. 48’-7”
Interior side yard setbacks 7.5 ft. 7.5 ft.
FAR 25% (2,163 sq.ft.) 24.2% (2,159 sq.ft.)
Max. lot coverage 40% (3,461 sq.ft.) 33.4% (2,891 sq.ft.) Height limitation 26 ft. 17 ft - 6 inches
Parking 2 garage spaces 2 garage spaces
As displayed in the comparison table, the project conforms with the standards of the R1-10 Zone.
Plate Heights, Roof Design and Building Height:
The proposed remodel would maintain a one-story design with traditional 4:12 pitched gable roof and would utilize the same finished floor elevation (230’) as the existing residence. Proposed plate heights would be 8.5- feet. The maximum roof ridge would increase by 2.2-feet with a maximum building height of 17-feet 6-inches, as measured pursuant to the provisions of the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC). The ridge height located over the garage would remain the same. The new chimney located on the western side of the residence would project an additional two (2-feet above the new highest ridgeline. The proposed project would comply with the Design Guideline recommendation to not exceed the maximum plate height of ten (10) feet and to utilize the existing finished floor and building pad of the lot to reduce bulk of the structure and minimize site grading.
Also the 230 square-feet FAR-exempt, front porch would comply with the Design Guideline and not exceed 15% of the project’s maximum FAR.
3 March 26, 2025 Item 2 52 July 7, 2025 Item 16
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT: DRB24-006
March 26, 2025
Landscape/Hardscape:
All existing landscaping onsite is proposed to be replaced with new landscaping. A total of four (4), 48-inch box Swan Hill fruitless olive trees are proposed, two within the front yard and two within the rear yard. A Carolina Laurel privacy hedge is proposed along the side and rear property lines. Additional privacy hedges along the south side of the residence and new front porch would consist of Majorie Channon Pittosporum. Other landscaping would include mostly drought-tolerant shrubs and ground coverings and grasses. The new landscaping comprises 4,113 square feet of the lot (47.5 percent). The Design Guideline minimum required landscaped area for 10,000 square foot lots is 45%, and the project would exceed the minimum recommendation.
Exterior Lighting:
Proposed exterior lighting would be downward directed and shielded bulbs limited to 2,700 Kelvins, which is consistent with the Design Guidelines. Proposed lighting specifications are included in the plans on Sheet A-2.0. Proposed landscape lighting would consist of 2,700 Kelvin pathway lights along the pathways around the home and rear yard. A Landscape Lighting Plan is included in Sheet L 3.0.
Exterior Materials:
The proposed exterior materials include white board and batten wall siding and trim, black framed windows and doors, dark charcoal standing seam metal roof, and red brick planter walls and chimney. A colored rendering of the proposed development has been included on DRB plan set Sheet A-3.0.
Story Poles:
Story-poles illustrating the proposed remodel were placed on the subject property on or before March 10, 2025, with certification provided of their placement in accordance with the story-pole plan and matrix included in the DRB plans.
Exemptions from DMMC Requirements:
A Citizen Participation Program (DMMC 23.08) and Coastal Development Permit (DMMC 30.75) are not required due to the proposed addition to the one-story residence being “attached” and located at grade. The project’s limited site grading also exempts the project from the requirement of a Land Conservation Permit (DMMC 23.32).
CORRESPONDENCE:
As of the writing of this report, the Planning and Community Development Department has received written correspondence from neighbors directly to the east at 1540 Forest Way (Fouquet) and at 505 Avenida Primavera (Frager), see Exhibit B. Both neighbors expressed concerns regarding potential scenic view blockage from the primary living areas of their respective residences and related concerns about maintenance of existing vegetation on the applicant’s property. The Board should note that based on the applicant’s proposed Landscape Plan, all existing vegetation would be removed and new vegetation would be installed with 4 March 26, 2025 Item 2 53 July 7, 2025 Item 16
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT: DRB24-006
March 26, 2025
implementation of the project. One letter of support was received from the neighbor to the south at 1548 Forest Way (Stubbs).
PROJECT’S CONSISTENCY WITH THE DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE:
Along with any findings required for other requested/required entitlements, DMMC Sections
23.08.072 through 23.08.080 (Design Review) include seven sets of “Regulatory Conclusions” the Design Review Board may address when reviewing an application for a Design Review Permit. Pursuant to Section 23.08.010 (B), “the Design Review Board shall fully consider the beneficial design impacts of a proposed project before analyzing the project for impacts that may violate the regulations” of the Design Review Ordinance. Section 23.08.070 stipulates that “an application project shall be approved unless the Design Review Board makes findings of fact based upon information presented during a public hearing can be made that the project as proposed will result in a conflict with one or more of the regulatory conclusions contained within the Design Review Ordinance.”
Staff has analyzed the subject project relative to the applicable standards of the Design Review Ordinance (DMMC Chapter 23.08), applicable Design Guidelines, an concerns expressed by neighbors. As previously mentioned, the project includes a one-story residence and attached two-car garage with a traditional design that includes 4:12 pitched gabled roofs. The maximum height of the structure would be 17-feet 6-inches or an overall increase of two (2) feet. The proposed plate heights would be 8.5-feet. The project would be maintaining the same finished floor elevations and building pad of the existing residence and yard. The project includes a 230 square-feet, FAR-exempt covered front porch. The project complies with Design Guideline recommendations for reducing structure height and mass and appears to be compatible with the scale and character of existing neighboring properties which are one- and two-story development.
Proposed yard improvements, exterior lighting, landscape and hardscape improvements, and grading quantities also comply with the Design Guideline recommendations.
The neighbors at 1540 Forest Way and 505 Avenida Primavera submitted written correspondence expressing concerns that the story poles appear to indicate towards that blockage of ocean view from their respective primary living areas (PLA) , see Exhibit B. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board review the project proposal relative to the following regulatory conclusion:
DMMC 23.08.077 H. The proposed development unreasonably encroaches upon primary scenic views of neighboring property
A determination of unreasonable view blockage must be based on scenic views from a Primary Living Area, which pursuant to DMMC 23.08.040 C. includes “that portion of a residence determined by the Design Review Board, or City Council on appeal, to be the main gathering and entertainment room used by residents and guests at the residence. Each residence shall be limited to the designation of only one primary living area. Unless otherwise determined by the 5 March 26, 2025 Item 2 54 July 7, 2025 Item 16
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT: DRB24-006
March 26, 2025
DRB, or City Council on appeal, the primary living area of a residence is that portion most often used by the occupants and their guests for gatherings and entertainment, consisting of the residence’s living room, dining room or great room.”
Table 2-1 of the Design Guidelines, cited below, provides limits for the percentage of view obstruction that should be allowed, depending on the type of view observed from the neighbor’s primary living area
TABLE 2-1: ALLOWABLE VIEW OBSTRUCTION - 180 DEGREE CORRIDOR View Type Slot
(< 45°)
Middle
(45°-90°)
Panorama
(>90°)
WHITE WATER 0-5% 0-5% 0-10%
BLUE WATER/BACK COUNTRY 0-10% 0-10% 0-15%
HORIZON 0-15% 0-20% 0-20%
COMMUNITY 0-15% 0-20% 0-20%
Pursuant to the Design Guideline, the view is considered from multiple vantage points within the PLA and a culmination of all views observed from both a standing and sitting position.
Staff performed a site visit to the primary living area of 1540 Forest Way. It is staff’s position that the subject scenic view from 1540 Forest Way should be considered a ”slot view,” taken from the windows located adjacent to the dining room. It was staff’s observation that the story poles appear to depict an obstruction of less than 10%, which per Design Guideline Table 2.1, would not be unreasonable scenic view blockage.
Staff also performed a site visit to the primary living area of 505 Avenida Primavera and did observe some amount of view taken blockage from the story poles. The scenic view appears to be best categorized as a “middle view,” taken from the sliding door and window located adjacent to the dining and living room. In this case, the story poles also appear to obstruct less than 10% of the middle view per the Design Guideline which may not be unreasonable scenic view blockage.
Staff should note that, as of the writing of this report, neither the concerned neighbors nor the Applicant have provided any exhibits that would graphically quantify how much of ocean view observed from either primary living areas would be obstructed.
Staff reminds the Board that in addition to the Design Guidelines information discussed above, a determination of “unreasonable” must be also based on the following findings, which are found in the DMMC 23.080.040 Definitions section of the DRO:
A. For purposes of this Chapter, a conclusion that a proposed design element is "unreasonable," must be supported by findings of fact regarding:
6 March 26, 2025 Item 2 55 July 7, 2025 Item 16
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT: DRB24-006
March 26, 2025
1. The extent to which the contested design element adversely impacts upon the purposes for which this Chapter is adopted.
2. Whether the project requires the inclusion of the contested design element in order for the project to be useable by the applicant.
3. Whether the project requires the inclusion of the contested design element in order to produce a project that is similar in quality to development in the neighborhood.
4. The availability of one or more alternatives to the contested design element that will produce a project that is useable by the applicant and similar in quality to development in the neighborhood.
Should the DRB determine that there is an “unreasonable” amount of Scenic View blockage after considering the information presented above, the Board should provide direction that the Applicant consider modifications to the roofline to reduce the scenic view obstruction entirely, or to a minimally acceptable amount per the Design Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board consider the Project relative to the analysis provided, especially those potential conflicts as analyzed in the DRO Compliance section of this report, and determine whether proposed development would present any conflicts with Regulatory Conclusions of the DRO. If the Project is determined to result in the potential for conflicts, staff recommends the Board provide specific feedback to the Applicant to effect compliance and continue the item to allow for design revisions to be made and brought back for Board review and consideration at a later date. However, if the Board determines to approve the project as presented, at a minimum, the draft conditions of approval included as Exhibit C should be included as part of any such approval.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jean Crutchfield
Associate Planner
Exhibit A – Aerial Map
Exhibit B – Correspondence
Exhibit C – Draft Resolution
7 March 26, 2025 Item 2 56 July 7, 2025 Item 16
8 March 26, 2025 Item 2
EXHIBIT A
57 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Comment on application DRB24-006, Proposed Remodel of 483 Avenida Primavera Submitted by Julie and David Fouquet, Owners of 1540 Forest Way March 17, 2025
We grew up at 1540 Forest Way, playing with the Schoell kids who lived at 483 Avenida Primavera. 483 Avenida Primavera was built on a foundation, while 1540 Forest Way was built on a concrete slab. The taller 483 Avenida Primavera house blocked the horizon view from much of 1540 Forest Way, but a fine view of the horizon could be seen from the south end of the living room. Later, the Shirts family moved into 483 Avenida Primavera. Our family was also
friends with the Shirts family. For many
years, our father, Doug Fouquet, and Cozette
Shirts worked to maintain views for everyone
in the neighborhood. Dad’s gardener
trimmed the hedge near Avenida Primavera,
with Cozette’s permission. In contrast, Skyler
Vincent, then owner of 471 Avenida
Primavera, planted a row of trees that
blocked views from houses higher up the hill.
Both Dad and Cozette tried to get these trees
cut back, but Mr. Vincent was very difficult.
Sadly, Dad and Cozette Shirts are no longer
with us. We inherited 1540 Forest Way. 483
Avenida Primavera has changed hands twice since then. We understand that the new owners of 483 Avenida Primavera want to upgrade their house, and we have communicated multiple times with their architectural firm to convey how the remodeled house could be more spacious yet not adversely impact the primary view – with the horizon now visible between the trees at 471 Avenida Primavera – or sunlight access.
Unfortunately, the south end of the proposed house is too high. It severely blocks the primary view from 1540 Forest Way. The south extension beyond the current house needs to be considerably lower, so that the horizon can be seen from 1540 Forest Way.
Please note that we are not objecting to the proposed increase in height above the footprint of the existing house, only to the height of the portion of the proposed house planned to the south of the existing house. However, the height of the rest of the house may block views from houses above our house.
We are also very frustrated that two new trees have been planted at 483 Avenida Primavera, apparently strategically placed to block the primary view from 1540 Forest Way. To us, this
9 March 26, 2025 Item 2
EXHIBIT B
58 July 7, 2025 Item 16
looks like abuse of the information that we provided to the architecture firm. (It is possible that the owner prior to the current owner planted these trees, rather than the current owner.) In any case, they should not be in this location. In contrast, we do appreciate the current owner’s trimming of the overgrown hedge near Avenida Primavera.
Sincerely,
Julie Fouquet and David Fouquet
10 March 26, 2025 Item 2 59 July 7, 2025 Item 16
483 Avenida Primavera
proposed project impacts on
1540 Forest Way
3/8/25
11 March 26, 2025 Item 2 60 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Views
Raised
foundation, with
raised back deck Concrete slab
Ocean view
483 Avenida
Primavera
blocks1540 For-
est Way’s view,
so 1540’s primary
view is from the
living room, to
the south of 483.
Google Maps
12 March 26, 2025 Item 2 61 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Interior of living room at 1540 Forest Way, looking to the southwest (2017). Large windows to the left of the fireplace were built to take advantage of the view.
Julie Fouquet
13 March 26, 2025 Item 2 62 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Before 471 Avenida Primavera’s “spite fence”
Douglas Fouquet
14 March 26, 2025 Item 2 63 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Before 471 Avenida Primavera’s “spite fence”
Douglas Fouquet
15 March 26, 2025 Item 2 64 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Proposed 483 Ave Primavera house blocks primary view
View from
living room
proposed
house
continues
Joseph Nickerson
16 March 26, 2025 Item 2 65 July 7, 2025 Item 16
New spite fence?
Joseph Nickerson
17 March 26, 2025 Item 2 66 July 7, 2025 Item 16
New spite fence?
Joseph Nickerson
18 March 26, 2025 Item 2 67 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Apparent misuse of information
• We have provided information to architects Bokal and Sneed in good faith, hoping that they would design a house that could be larger but not block the primary view from our house.
• New trees have been planted, apparently strategically, to block the primary view.
19 March 26, 2025 Item 2 68 July 7, 2025 Item 16
View from 1540’s yard, away from house
Joseph Nickerson
20 March 26, 2025 Item 2 69 July 7, 2025 Item 16
View from yard, but closer to house
New tree blocking
primary view from house
21 March 26, 2025 Item 2 70 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Secondary view blocked too
Doug Fouquet (1540 Forest Way) and Cosette Shirts (483 Avenida Primavera) kept this hedge trimmed and all neighbors could see over it. Not any longer….
John Frager
22 March 26, 2025 Item 2 71 July 7, 2025 Item 16
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2025 4:41 PM
To: Jean Crutchfield
Cc: Planning Mail Box; [email protected]
Subject: DRB24-006, 483 Avenida Primavera
Attachments: Del Mar DRB24-006 483 Avenida Primavera.pdf; Del Mar DRB24-006 483 Avenida Primavera.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.
To: Del Mar Design and Review Board
From: John & Kristen Frager, Owners of 505 Avenida Primavera, Del Mar, CA Date: March 12, 2025
Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Project at 483 Avenida Primavera (Owned by Lisa Parnell)
Dear Members of the Del Mar Design and Review Board,
We are writing to express our significant concerns regarding the proposed residential project at 483 Avenida Primavera, owned by Lisa Parnell, located two homes below us to the west. As residents of 505 Avenida Primavera, we have enjoyed the scenic views from our primary living area, which we believe are unreasonably threatened by both the height of the proposed new home and a recent decision by the current owner to cease maintaining a historically well-trimmed hedge. We respectfully request that the Board carefully consider these issues under the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Design Review Ordinance
23.08.077-H and the City’s Landscape Policy.
Concern 1: Unreasonable View Blockage from Proposed Home Height The story poles currently erected at 483 Avenida Primavera demonstrate that the proposed height of the new home would significantly obstruct the scenic views from our primary living area, defined in the DMMC as “the room in the primary residence most often the main gathering or entertaining area for guests.” We have photographic evidence illustrating the extent of this blockage, which are attached for review. This is not the first time such a proposal has been brought forward over the past four years, successive owners of this property, working with Bokal & Sneed Architects, have proposed similarly obstructive designs. Each prior attempt has been denied by the DRB following neighbor input, only for the property to be sold and the cycle to repeat. We urge the Board to uphold the intent of Ordinance 23.08.077-H and deny this latest iteration to protect our scenic views.
Concern 2: Unmaintained Hedge as a Potential “Spite Wall” 23 March 26, 2025 Item 2 72 July 7, 2025 Item 16
More recently, the current owner has ceased trimming a tall hedge along the property, which now further obstructs our view. For over 40 years, this hedge—spanning two properties—has been consistently maintained at a reasonable height, with the adjacent property owner continuing to trim their portion in good faith. We have constructively engaged with Ms. Parnell, offering to cover the cost of trimming the hedge on her property to restore the historical norm, but she has declined. This sudden departure from decades of maintenance, combined with the timing of the proposed construction, suggests an intent to create what is commonly known as a “spite wall”—a deliberate effort to exacerbate view obstruction. The City’s Landscape Policy and the Good Neighbor Guide to Design Review in Del Mar emphasize the importance of maintaining neighborly cooperation and respecting existing conditions. We believe this unmaintained hedge violates that spirit and merits the Board’s attention as part of its review.
Next Steps
We welcome the opportunity to meet with the Board and the architect between March 19 and March 26, 2025, to demonstrate the impact of both the story poles and the hedge from our property. We will follow up separately with our contact information and availability, as advised, to facilitate this visit. Should we be unavailable, we will ensure a representative is present.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters. We trust the DRB will uphold the standards of the Del Mar Municipal Code and protect the character of our community.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions.
Sincerely,
John & Kristen Frager
505 Avenida Primavera
Del Mar, CA
24 March 26, 2025 Item 2 73 July 7, 2025 Item 16
DRB24-006
483 Avenida Primavera
Concerns
By
John & Kristen Frager
505 Avenida Primavera
25 March 26, 2025 Item 2 74 July 7, 2025 Item 16
New story poles height shown in red.
26 March 26, 2025 Item 2 75 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Subject hedge as it was always
maintained in the past.
27 March 26, 2025 Item 2 76 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Hedge today
28 March 26, 2025 Item 2 77 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Hedge today
29 March 26, 2025 Item 2 78 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Subject hedge as it was always maintained in the past.
According to Julie Fouquet, her father “had the hedge trimmed so that he could see the horizon from the bedroom windows on the north side of the house, which would be no more than five feet above the floor level. That puts it at least six feet below the (eleven-foot) roof line.” 30 March 26, 2025 Item 2 79 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Hedge today
31 March 26, 2025 Item 2 80 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Hedge today, which used to
be maintained well below the
house line.
32 March 26, 2025 Item 2 81 July 7, 2025 Item 16
From: T. Pat Stubbs <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 11:42 AM
To: Planning Mail Box
Subject: Parnell Home - 483 Avenida Primavera
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Honorable design review board members:
As a former three-term Design Review Board member and Chairperson, I thank you for your service to the community.
Our property is located at 1528 Forest Way and shares a property line with the Parnell’s home at 483 Avenida Primavera.
Throughout the process the Parnell’s and their Architect have been open and understanding to the relationship that our properties share. Our property is surrounded on its property lines by five different neighboring properties. We welcome the respectful structure, design and the associated landscaping that the Parnell’s propose.
Through their actions, words and the proposed plans, it is quite obvious that the Parnell‘s are looking to be good neighbors. Their design is respectful to the adjacent properties and a positive impact our property and the surrounding neighborhood.
Should you like to see for yourselves, you are invited to our property to review the current situation. Just give me a call at 619-813-3208.
Respectfully submitted,
T. Pat Stubbs
1528 Forest Way
Del Mar, California 92014
33 March 26, 2025 Item 2 82 July 7, 2025 Item 16
From: Brisa Smith
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 1:27 PM
To: Jean Crutchfield
Subject: FW: 483 Avenida Primavera DRB24-006
Brisa Smith | Assistant Planner
City of Del Mar | Planning and Community Development
1050 Camino del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
858.704.3646 | [email protected]
City Hall is open to the public for in-person public services including general walk-in services and payments Monday-Thursday, from 7:30 AM- 5:30 PM. Planning and Building services at the City Hall public counter are available Monday and Wednesday between 1:00 PM to 5:30 PM. All remote services will continue to be provided during regular City hours. Please check our City website at www.delmar.ca.us for more information.
From: Marti Gellens-Stubbs <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 10:41 AM
To: Planning Mail Box <[email protected]>
Subject: 483 Avenida Primavera DRB24-006
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.
Design Reciew Board Members:
I am writing this letter in support of the proposed residence at 483 Avenida Primavera. We live at 1528 Forest Way and our fence abuts this property along our North property line. We are in complete support of the proposed residence and have no issues with any of the design aspects. Lisa Parnell is the third owner in four years because all who have purchased this home have tried to create a new residence and have been met with opposition. The proposed design fits beautifully in the neighborhood and does not impact the neighborhood negatively in any way. It is time to allow this property to be enhanced and add another beautiful home to our neighborhood.
Thank you,
34 March 26, 2025 Item 2 83 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Marti Gellens-Stubbs
Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices
California Properties
7910 Girard Avenue Suite 9
La Jolla, Ca. 92037
858-551-6630 (office)
858-353-1515 (cell)
858-551-4898 (fax)
www.gellens.com
DRE# 00882546
35 March 26, 2025 Item 2 84 July 7, 2025 Item 16
RESOLUTION NO. DRB-2025-xx
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY
OF DEL MAR, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT DRB24-006,
TO REMODEL THE EXTERIOR OF AN EXISTING 1,578 SQUAREFOOT, ONE-STORY RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED GARAGE.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE: DEMOLISHING 87 SQUARE
FEET OF FLOOR AREA FROM THE RESIDENCE AND GARAGE;
DEMOLISHING REAR PATIO COVER; CONSTRUCTING A 689
SQUARE-FOOT, ONE-STORY ADDITION WITH ROOF
MODIFICATIONS AND A NEW CHIMNEY; CONSTRUCTING A NEW
230 SQUARE-FOOT FAR-EXEMPT COVERED FRONT PORCH;
CONSTRUCTING A NEW POOL AND ASSOCIATED MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT; AND INSTALLATION OF NEW EXTERIOR LIGHTING,
LANDSCAPE, HARDSCAPE AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON LAND
LOCATED WITHIN THE R1-10 ZONE AT 483 AVENIDA PRIMAVERA,
DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA
Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 299-290-04-00
WHEREAS, Lisa M. Parnell (Trustee of the Footer Residence Trust II ACF FBO Lisa M.
Parnell UTA dated 12/18/12, as to an undivided 50.00 interest and Lisa M. Parnell, Trustee of the Footer Residence Trust II TLF FBO Lisa M. Parnell UTA dated 12/18/12, as to an undivided 50.00 interest, all as Tenants in Common) (“Applicant”), is the owner of real property commonly referred to as 483 Avenida Primavera (APN 299-290-04-00) (Property); and WHEREAS, the Applicant filed an application for Design Review Permit DRB24-006, to remodel the exterior of an existing 1,578 square-foot, one-story residence with attached garage. Proposed improvements include: demolishing 87 square feet of floor area from the residence and garage; demolishing rear patio cover; constructing a 689 square-foot, one-story addition with roof modifications and a new chimney (totaling 2,159 square foot residence); constructing a new 230 square-foot Floor Area Ration (FAR)-exempt covered front porch; constructing a new pool and associated mechanical equipment; and installation of new exterior lighting, landscape, hardscape and site improvements on land located within the R1-10 zone at 483 Avenida Primavera, Del Mar, California; and
WHEREAS, the Project constitutes a request as provided by Title 23 of the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s adopted CEQA Supplemental Regulations, the Project has been found to be Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 Class 1 (e) (1) (Existing Facilities), in that the Project proposes the construction of an addition to the existing residence which is less than 2,500 square feet, and further; it has been determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a Categorical Exemption are applicable (Guidelines Section 15300.2);and
WHEREAS, the project would remodel an existing single-unit dwelling in the “Low Density Residential (R1-10) Zone. Therefore, approval of the requested discretionary development applications would have no impact on the City of Del Mar’s housing supply or housing affordability; and
36 March 26, 2025 Item 2
EXHIBIT C
85 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Resolution No. DRB-2025-xx
DRB24-006
WHEREAS, on March 26, 2025, the Design Review Board (DRB) of the City of Del Mar held a duly noticed public hearing to review the referenced entitlements, and at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include without limitation:
a. Project plans submitted by the Applicant;
b. Written information submitted with the application;
c. Oral testimony from City staff, the Applicant and the public; d. Staff Report, dated March 26, 2025, which is incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein;
e. Additional information submitted during the hearing (if any); and WHEREAS, DMMC Section 23.08.070 provides that a request for a Design Review Permit shall be approved unless the Design Review Board makes findings of fact based upon information presented during a public hearing that support one or more of the Regulatory Conclusions set forth therein; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Design Review Board of the City of Del Mar finds that based upon the evidence presented at the public hearing on March 26, 2025, including written and oral staff reports, public written testimony, Applicant’s and Applicant’s representative’s written and oral testimony, and in accordance with DMMC Section 23.08.070, the Design Review Board of the City of Del Mar finds that the Project, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the Community based on the Regulatory Conclusions Sections of DMMC Chapter
23.08 (Design Review).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the DRB, that Design Review Permit DRB24-006 is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
GENERAL CONDITIONS
** Any gaps in numbering are intentional
G-1 [Business License]
Prior to commencement of any work on site, all contractors and subcontractors shall obtain a valid City of Del Mar Business License. The general contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that all subcontractors obtain the required Business License and shall retain copies of said permits on site for verification by City staff.
G-2 [Utility Undergrounding Threshold]
If the total cost of new construction exceeds $7,500 (as determined by the Building Department), all new utility service connections shall be placed underground consistent with the provisions of Section 30.86.210 of the Del Mar Municipal Code.
G-3 [Development Authorization Limited to Plan-Set]
This permit is granted based on submitted plans dated March 26, 2025, by the Planning and Community Development Department and so identified by the staff of the Del Mar Planning and 37 March 26, 2025 Item 2 86 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Resolution No. DRB-2025-xx
DRB24-006
Community Development Department. Revisions to these plans and/or any proposals for modification shall require review and prior authorization from the appropriate entities of the City of Del Mar.
G-4 [Encroachment Permit for Work in the Public Right-of-Way] Any work proposed or required within a City of Del Mar public right-of-way or access easement, or required within a public right-of-way or access easements pursuant to the conditions of approval of this Permit, shall be subject to the prior receipt of a City of Del Mar Encroachment Permit.
Applications for Encroachment Permits shall include plans depicting all proposed private and public improvements including, but not limited to, improvements involving drainage, grading and/or public utilities. The required Encroachment Permit shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Del Mar in accordance with the procedures set forth in the DMMC and may include requirements for inspections and/or submittal of a security deposit(s). Please note that Design Review Board or Planning Commission approval of plans indicating right-of-way improvements does not constitute approval of the separately required Encroachment Permit.
G-5 [Requirement for Building Permits]
Prior to commencement of work, the Applicant or agent shall obtain all required Building Permits.
G-6 [Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Requirement] Owners and builders generating any construction and demolition debris on a project must comply with the minimum requirements regarding recycling or reuse for salvage set forth in the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11. This includes, but is not limited to, the submittal of a Construction Waste Management Plan and a minimum diversion of 65 percent of non-hazardous construction and demolition waste. Signage shall be posted on-site with information identifying materials to be diverted.
G-7 [Code Compliance]
Approval of this application shall not waive the requirement for compliance with the provisions of the Del Mar Municipal Code or other applicable City regulations in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance, unless specifically waived in this permit authorization.
G-8 [Height Certification Prior to Framing Sign-Off]
A framing inspection by the Planning Community Development Department shall be required prior to the Building Department framing inspection for the Project. At that time, the Applicant shall provide a statement from a Licensed Surveyor certifying that the building height is in conformance with the approved plans for the Project. The survey required herein shall be prepared using City of Del Mar approved vertical benchmarks for building height certification and reported to 0.01 of a foot.
G-9 [Story Pole Removal]
Story poles shall be removed from the property within 10 calendar days following the date of the City’s final action on the Project.
38 March 26, 2025 Item 2 87 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Resolution No. DRB-2025-xx
DRB24-006
G-10 [Plan for Construction-Phase Impacts]
Prior to issuance of Building Permits or commencement of Project implementation (whichever comes first), the Applicant shall provide a plan for construction-phase parking and equipment/materials storage for the Project. The plan must include the following:
a. Identification of an on-site material storage location; b. Identification of an on-site equipment storage location; c. Identification of at least two on-site parking space which will remain available throughout the duration of the Project;
d. Location of any temporary sanitary facilities;
e. A note stating that “If on-street parking is utilized, a minimum street access clearance of 20ft. will be maintained”;
f. Map displaying any/all haul routes; and
g. Contact information (phone number and Email) for the on-site supervisor(s);
1. This information must also be posted on-site in a location which is readily visible from the public right-of-way for the duration of the Project.
The plan required herein shall be subject to the review and written approval of the Planning and Community Development Director, working in consultation with Parking Enforcement and Public Works Departments. Haul routes and work and/or storage of material or equipment within a City right-of-way will require the receipt of an Encroachment Permit. The requirements mentioned above may be modified by the Planning and Community Development Director upon a determination that sufficient alternatives have been proposed which achieve a similar level of compliance.
G-10A In addition to the submittal of a Construction Phase Impact Plan, the Applicant must place a Construction Parking Placard in all vehicles associated with the Project which will be parked off-site. The placard must remain in plain view on the dashboard of the vehicle throughout the duration of the Project. A Construction Parking Placard can be obtained from the City of Del Mar Planning Department.
G-12 [Permit Expiration]
This permit shall expire three years from the date of approval, on March 26, 2028 unless a Building Permit has been issued (if required by the DMMC) and substantial construction has been accomplished in reliance upon the permit. Pursuant to the DMMC, substantial construction is defined as: completion of a minimum of 10 percent of the total amount of construction authorized by the permit, based on the monetary value of construction costs including grading, site preparation and construction but specifically excluding all costs associated with the acquisition of interest in the Project site and all costs associated with the preparation and processing of permits or plans.
G-13 [Pre-Construction Meeting]
Prior to any demolition, construction, and/or land disturbances occurring on-site, a preconstruction meeting shall be held. As deemed appropriate by the City, attendees to this meeting shall include representatives from the City of Del Mar’s Planning and Community Development Department, City Engineer, City Clean Water Manager, the Project Contractor/Superintendent, the Project Architect, the Project Engineer, the property owner and any others essential for the proper 39 March 26, 2025 Item 2 88 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Resolution No. DRB-2025-xx
DRB24-006
implementation and completion of this Project. At a minimum, the following issues shall be reviewed at this meeting:
• City of Del Mar inspection requirements.
• Process for requests for plan modification and determinations of substantial conformance. • Discretionary permit conditions and requirements.
• Construction hour limitations and noise standards.
• Construction access and parking including equipment/materials storage and maintenance. • Work within public rights-of-way and/or easements.
• Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs).
• Tree-preservation requirements.
• Demolition Permit requirements.
• Signage requirements/limitations.
• Neighborhood impact issues.
• Key contact information.
• Business license requirements.
• Any other pertinent construction related activities and or information.
G-15 [Compliance with City Noise Regulations]
The Applicant and all parties involved with implementation of the Project shall comply with the regulations of the DMMC with regard to construction noise. The regulations stipulate that all construction activities are limited to the following periods: between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday and between 9:00 AM and 7:00 PM on Saturdays. Construction activities are prohibited during other hours and on Sundays and City Holidays. The City’s Noise Ordinance, DMMC Chapter 9.20, includes the dates of City Holidays, and can be viewed on the City’s web page (www.delmar.ca.us).
G-16 [Dig Alert]
Prior to excavation or trenching, the Applicant shall call Underground Service Alert of Southern California (Dig Alert 800-227-2600) for a mark-out of service utilities.
G-17 [Rules for Construction-Related Signage]
All construction-related signage posted at the Project site shall comply with DMMC Chapter 30.84 (Signs). The pertinent sections of the Sign Chapter allow installation of a total 5.5 square feet of temporary signage on a residential property (that is cumulative of all signs posted). Such signs may be posted for a maximum of sixty (60) days in a calendar year.
The restrictions noted above do not apply to the Development Pending, Construction Noise Notice and Building Permit signs required by the City as part of the Project review process.
All construction related signage, including City required signs, shall be removed prior to final approval of the Project.
40 March 26, 2025 Item 2 89 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Resolution No. DRB-2025-xx
DRB24-006
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
S-13 [Pool/Spa Heating]
Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall provide verification, to the satisfaction of the Planning and Community Development Director, that any proposed pool heating system is in compliance with DMMC Section 23.20.060, in that: 1) all swimming pools proposed to be heated shall be heated solely by use of a solar pool heating system or other energy efficient system deemed acceptable by the City as being compliant with the provisions of DMMC Chapter 23.20; and 2) no conventional swimming pool heating systems shall be installed, except for those spas or Jacuzzis whose water surface area is less than seventy-five (75) square-feet.
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
F-1 [Class “A” Roof]
All structures shall be provided with a Class “A” Roof covering to the satisfaction of the California Building and Fire Code. NO wood shake shingles are allowed.
F-10 [Address Numbers]
STREET NUMBERS: Approved numbers and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings and at appropriate additional locations as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or roadway fronting the property from either direction of approach. Said numbers shall contrast with their background, and shall meet the following minimum standards as to size: 4” high with a 3/8” stroke for residential buildings, 8” high with a ½” stroke for commercial and multi-family residential buildings, 12” high with a 1” stroke for industrial buildings. Additional numbers shall be required in following locations; where deemed necessary by Fire Marshal, such as rear access doors, building corners, and entrances to commercial centers. ALSO; where structures are located off a roadway on long easements/driveways, a monument marker shall be placed at the entrance where the easement/driveway intersects the main roadway. Permanent address numbers with height conforming to Fire Department standards shall be affixed to this marker.
F-12 [Automatic Fire Sprinkler System-Commercial, Multi-Family And Residential Structures And Garages; Fire Department Connections For Multi-Family And Commercial Sprinkler Systems And Related Control Valves]
All structures shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system designed and installed to the satisfaction of the California Fire Code and Del Mar Municipal Code 10.04. Plans for the automatic fire sprinkler system shall be submitted prior to start of construction and approved by the City designated fire plans examiner prior to any on site building construction inspection (other than slab, grading inspection) by a building official.
Fire Department Connections (FDC) for fire sprinkler and standpipe systems shall meet the following requirements: shall be mounted at the following height(s); 36 to 42 inches above finished grade, to the top of connection.
• If FDC is installed separate from the Backflow/Double Detector Check, it shall be located a minimum of 5 feet from the Backflow/DDC valve.
41 March 26, 2025 Item 2 90 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Resolution No. DRB-2025-xx
DRB24-006
• When an FDC is attached to Backflow/DDC, the FDC mounting height shall still be 36 to 42 inches max above finished grade
• If the Backflow/DDC is installed without an FDC, both OS&Y valve handles shall be mounted 36 to 42 inches above finished grade.
• Bushes, trees and similar foliage shall not be located within a radius of 5 feet of an FDC or Backflow/DDC valve assembly. Ground cover landscape is acceptable.” F-13 [Smoke and CO Detection]
Smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms shall be installed, as required by California Building or Fire Codes.
F-18 [Roadway Clearance During Construction]
In accordance with the California Fire Code and California Vehicle Code, during Project construction, all roadways shall maintain a minimum travel clearance width of 20 feet, with such area free of Project equipment or materials, including the parking of construction-related vehicles.
WATER CONSERVATION:
WC-01 [Compliance with City and State Water Conservation Policies and Regulations] Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a Landscape Documentation Package (LDP) for the project prepared by a landscape architect or landscape contractor licensed by the State of California. The LDP required herein shall include anticipated water use calculations for the project's landscape and irrigation components. The LDP shall be accompanied by a certification from the preparer that the LDP is in compliance with the City's adopted water conservation policies in effect at the time of LDP preparation, including Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 23.60 (Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance) and any guidelines adopted by the City for such ordinance. The preparer shall also certify that the LDP is in compliance with the Governor's Executive Order Nos. B-29-15 and B-36-15, which call for compliance with landscape/irrigation water use standards set by the California Building Standards Commission and the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
The LDP shall be subject to the review and written approval of the Director of Planning and Community Development (Director). The Director shall, as deemed necessary, work in consultation with the City's Landscape Architect, with the costs for such consultation to be borne by the applicant or his/her designee. If the submitted LDP is found not to be in compliance with the standards referenced herein, it shall be revised accordingly and resubmitted for compliance review.
In the event that compliance with this condition results in the need to modify a landscape or irrigation plan approved as part of a discretionary permit granted by the City, the Director shall have discretion to authorize changes of landscape materials in a manner that retains like-for-like consistency with the parameters of the project's approved discretionary permit, with such parameters to include: the sie of landscape material to be installed and its anticipated mature height; and the location of any trees to be installed.
42 March 26, 2025 Item 2 91 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Resolution No. DRB-2025-xx
DRB24-006
WC-02 [City Inspection for Compliance with Project's Landscape Documentation Package] Prior to final sign-off on implementation, the project shall be subject to inspection by City staff for compliance with the Landscape Documentation Package (LDP) required pursuant to the project's conditions of approval. The inspections shall include review for compliance with the irrigation and landscape plans included as component parts of the LDP.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS:
E-1 [Separate Permits for Off-site Work]
All improvements to off-site facilities, including the provision of access road and/or utility lines as proposed or required pursuant to the conditions of this Permit, shall be subject to the receipt of separate City permits, as applicable.
E-2 [Drainage Plan]
Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall provide a detailed Drainage Plan for the project prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Architect. The Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the City’s “Applicant’s Guide to Procedures for a Grading Permit” and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning and Community Development Department Director in consultation with the City Engineer. The Plan required herein shall be prepared to minimize the amount of impervious surface area of the development and to maximize the on-site dissipation of storm water run-off. The Plan shall be in compliance with applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater requirements and shall incorporate the use of “Best Management Practices” (BMPs) to control runoff or discharge onto the City rights-of-way and to avoid run-off onto adjacent private properties.
In addition to the considerations listed above, the Plan shall also address/incorporate the following:
E-2A A topographical map indicating property lines, topographic features and existing and/or proposed structures prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer or a Licensed Land Surveyor. Said map shall include two-foot contour lines and/or sufficient spot elevations to clearly represent existing and proposed topographical features, and existing and proposed drainage patterns. Said map shall also show entire property boundary including any assumed found monuments, and bearings and distances based on record information. Survey shall extend minimum 25 feet beyond limits of property line and adjoining right-of-way; E-2B The location of all existing or proposed easements within the property boundary; E-2C The location of all roof down-spouts and any proposed collection system, with information regarding pipe alignments, invert elevations, slopes, sizes, and the discharge location of said collection system;
E-2D Depict the location of site utilities and location of proposed swimming pool and patio deck;
43 March 26, 2025 Item 2 92 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Resolution No. DRB-2025-xx
DRB24-006
E-2E Depict location of pool pump and filtering equipment on plan set. Location per Planning Department conditions;
E-2F The Plan shall specify that swimming pool drainage will be collected and conveyed into sanitary sewer systems unless otherwise required or authorized by the Planning and Community Development Director. Provide a sewer lateral within ten feet of the proposed swimming pool to drain pool for periodic maintenance; E-2G The manner in which landscaped areas will be drained. The Plans shall ensure that no area drains will be installed within landscape areas which are subjected to irrigation run-off;
E-2H The methods for providing temporary erosion control during the construction phase of the project, complete with the inclusion of standard grading and erosion control notes on the plans;
E-2I The manner in which drainage from retaining wall sub-drains and sump pumps will be collected and conveyed. The Plan shall specify that such drainage shall not be discharged onto City streets and that drainage from sub-drains and sump pumps shall discharge on the project site to allow percolation back into the soil; E-2J The manner in which drainage shall be controlled to eliminate the discharge of nuisance water and to ensure that existing or proposed private pipe outlets will not convey or discharge nuisance water onto adjacent properties or into the public rightof-way (i.e., from irrigation, swimming pool splash run-off, planter area drains, French drains, etc.);
E-2K Interception of run-off from the proposed driveway to preclude direct flow to the adjacent streets right-of-way. This may be accomplished by incorporation of pervious driving surfaces, diversion to landscaped areas using swales or grates, etc.
The project engineer’s evaluation shall include, but not be limited to, consideration of the potential effect of proposed construction on site groundwater and moisture conditions. Provide spot grades and/or contours to substantiate design; E-2L The inclusion and maintenance of a 5-foot wide buffer zone to be maintained along the edge of pavement along the street frontage. No obstructions (i.e., walls, trees, benches, etc.) shall be permitted within this area;
E-2M Depict the existing sewer and water mains and laterals serving the residence; E-2N All Retaining walls along property lines shall be depicted in plan and profile. The limits of retaining wall footings shall be depicted in the plan view; E-2O Include storm drain run-off "Best Management Practices" that minimize the volumes of urban run-off discharge to City rights-of-way, as acceptable to the City Engineer. Indicate how the proposed bio-infiltration/retention area or bio-swale will discharge off-site without causing erosion. Depict the location of erosion control devices to be implemented in the event of rainfall; 44 March 26, 2025 Item 2 93 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Resolution No. DRB-2025-xx
DRB24-006
E-2P Ensure that the development will minimize the amount of impervious surface area and maximize the on-site dissipation of storm water run-off; E-2Q Provide elevations and slope call-outs to clarify how water will drain around the proposed patio hardscape, with assurances the runoff will not be conveyed over sensitive topographic features;
E-2R Include landscaping plans with characteristics that maximize infiltration, provide retention, reduce irrigation and storm water run-off, use efficient irrigation, and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; E-2S Include a Hydrology/Hydraulic Report prepared by a Registered Engineer that addresses how storm water will be adequately collected and conveyed on and across the subject property. The report shall also address the tributary area for run-off directed to and across the subject property. The report shall Address” a) The tributary area for run-off directed to and across the subject property. b) Calculations and details demonstrating that if proposed inlets/outlets, etc. are plugged or overloaded, the site is capable of conveying storm flows in a manner that is not detrimental (including flooding and erosion) to surrounding properties. c) Shall address both existing and proposed conditions. d) Shall provide calculations for the 2-year and 100-year events for pre and post conditions.
E-2T Incorporate all recommendations pursuant to the Hydrology/Hydraulic Report prepared for the project. This includes the detailing in the plan set of any bio retention/infiltration or vegetated swales which are proposed. Mitigate for any increase in runoff generated by this development;
E-2U If the project involves demolition of an existing structure or surface improvements, the grading and erosion control plans shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. No demolition shall be permitted without an approved erosion control plan;
E-2W Following construction completion, the project designer shall inspect as-built improvements. Significant discrepancies, if any, between the approved plans and as-built conditions shall be brought to the attention of the Planning and Community Development Department and City Engineer. An as-built plan prepared by the project designer will be required. Prior to final sign-off by the City Engineer, the project designer shall sign the as-built plan indicating that the project was completed in accordance with said plan.
45 March 26, 2025 Item 2 94 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Resolution No. DRB-2025-xx
DRB24-006
E-3 [Engineering Fee]
Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall provide fees as delineated in the City’s Engineering Review Fee Schedule as funds necessary for Engineering Department review of the proposed site improvements. If additional review beyond the scope outlined in the Engineering Review Fee Schedule becomes necessary, a supplemental deposit(s) will be required.
E-4 [Installation of Public Improvements]
E-4A The applicant shall perform street repairs on a portion of Avenida Primavera adjacent to the property. Said Street shall have dig-out performed on any distressed pavement and shall receive a 1-1/2” grind and overlay full width adjacent to property which shall include all transitions, drainage facilities, and other improvements as deemed necessary by the City Engineer. Said improvements shall be subject to inspection and approval by the City Engineer. A separate cost estimate is required for the work within the public right-of-way. Additional review fees will be required based on the City’s standard fee schedule for public improvements; and E-4B The applicant shall construct a mountable 4” asphalt concrete along the property frontage with transitions to the existing improvements. The applicant shall also construct a San Diego Regional Standard Driveway, G-14, apron for the new driveway location,
E-5 [Private Drains]
E-5A Unless specifically authorized in permit plans, drains in landscape areas discharging to public rights-of-way shall not be allowed. Drains discharging into public rightsof-way may be authorized, subject to review by the City Engineer and only if warranted by unique site conditions. In such cases, design elements shall be incorporated into the plans which reduce the potential for stormwater pollution and nuisance drainage to the maximum extent practicable. The project engineer’s evaluation shall include, but not be limited to, consideration of the potential effect of proposed construction on site groundwater and moisture conditions. All hardscape drains, roof drains, wall drains and other private drains shall be shown in detail on improvement plans.
E-5B Site drainage shall be designed such that, in the event of plugged or overloaded inlets/outlets, storm flows will be conveyed in a manner that is not detrimental to the site or other properties; and
E-5C Deck drains, when used, shall be no more than 25 feet apart, and no single drain shall serve more than 250 square feet of area. There shall be no direct connection between the pool deck drains and the sewer or plumbing drainage systems. They shall not drain to the pool gutter or recirculation systems.
E-6 [Authorization for Off-site Work]
E-6A Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall obtain letters of permission from affected property owners if construction or construction access is required across property lines; and
46 March 26, 2025 Item 2 95 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Resolution No. DRB-2025-xx
DRB24-006
E-6B The following note shall be included on the plans for the Permit: “No grading shall occur outside the limits of the approved grading plan unless prior written authorization is obtained from the City and the owners of any other affected properties.”; and
E-6C Engineer of Work shall depict the proposed haul route to and from the site within the limits of the City of Del Mar.
E-7 [Grading – Separate Permits for Borrow or Disposal Site] A separate Grading Plan shall be submitted and approved and a separate Grading Permit issued for any off-site borrow or disposal site, if located within City limits. An Encroachment Permit will be required to identify the haul route proposed for this purpose.
If the borrow or disposal site is located outside of the City, the applicant shall provide evidence of receipt of required permits/authorizations. A haul route shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer.
E-7A A log documenting the dates of hauling and the number of trips (i.e. trucks) per day shall be available on the job site at all times;
E-7B The applicant shall identify a construction manager and provide a telephone number for any inquiries or complaints from residents regarding construction activities. The telephone number shall be posted at the site readily visible to any interested party during site preparation, grading and construction;
E-7C Trucks shall be spaced so as to discourage a convoy effect; and E-7D There shall be no staging of hauling trucks on any streets adjacent to the project, unless specifically approved as a condition of an approved haul route.
E-8 [Soil Stabilization]
The applicant shall utilize sediment controls only as a supplement to erosion prevention for keeping sediment on-site during construction – NEVER as a single or primary method.
E-8A The applicant shall clear and grade only the areas on the project site that are necessary for construction. These areas shall be clearly denoted on the plans; E-8B The applicant shall minimize exposure time of disturbed soil areas; E-8C The applicant shall submit a schedule to the City for review and approval, with proposed dates, demonstrating the minimization of grading during the wet season and coinciding the grading with dry weather periods, permanent revegetation and landscaping as early as feasible, temporary stabilization and reseeding of disturbed soil areas as early as feasible;
E-8D The applicant shall stabilize all slopes per City approved method; and 47 March 26, 2025 Item 2 96 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Resolution No. DRB-2025-xx
DRB24-006
E-8E The contractor is required to provide periodic and continuous maintenance of all Best Management Practices (BMP) devices/facilities listed in the City approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project. This includes but is not limited to, filter material replacement and sediment removal, as required to assure peak performance of all BMPs.
E-9 [Required Backflow Prevention Valve]
If the project authorized by this permit will involve installation or retention of any plumbing drainage fixtures at a level below that of the PUBLIC sewer main serving the project site, the applicant shall install a private backflow prevention device on their private lateral per the requirements shown below.
The plans shall be submitted prior to the issuance of Building Permits and shall be according to the Uniform Plumbing Code and subject to the review and written approval of the Planning and Community Development Director and City Engineer. Once installed, the private backflow prevention device(s) shall be subject to inspection by the City Engineer prior to final sign off for the project.
E-10 [Access to Water Meters]
Access to proposed or existing water meters located on or immediately adjacent to the property shall remain open and unobstructed at all times. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that no structure or vegetation is proposed so as to restrict access to the water meter. In the event access is blocked by project implementation, the applicant shall be responsible for the removal any obstruction at his/her expense or shall pay for the cost of relocating the water meter to allocation acceptable to the Public Works Department.
E-11 [Updated Title Report]
Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall prepare an updated title report for the property.
E-12 [Compliance with City of Del Mar JURMP]
This project shall conform to the construction component in the latest edition of the City's Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP).
E-13 [Sewer Service]
The sewer connection to the public main must be a gravity connection. If a pump is required in order to service the residence, it must transition to gravity flow prior to connection to the public system. A sewer backflow prevention device will also be required if a pump is proposed. The existing Sewer lateral shall be videoed and certified clear of obstructions or damage by a licensed plumber. Should the lateral be damaged, a new lateral shall be installed to service the residence.
48 March 26, 2025 Item 2 97 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Resolution No. DRB-2025-xx
DRB24-006
E-14 [Backflow Prevention]
A reduced pressure backflow prevention device is required for the water system that services the pool/spa. The system must be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Public Works, and Building Department.
E-15 [Proposed Retaining Wall]
The proposed retaining walls shall be designed and constructed completely within the property. No portion of the wall or footing shall extend across the property line. The limits of any retaining wall footing shall be depicted on the grading plan. The applicant shall provide a plan and profile view of the proposed retaining wall that will depict top of wall and top of footing elevations. The applicant shall use either County of San Diego Standard wall design, City of San Diego Standard Wall design, or custom design walls processed through the Building Department.
E-16 [Driveway Slope]
The Grading Plan must include a profile of the proposed driveway. The longitudinal slope must not exceed 8% within 10’ of the street. The slope must not exceed 6% within 25’ of the garage door. Between these two areas, the slope must not exceed 25%.
E-17 [Peak Runoff Mitigation]
The proposed improvements shall result in a net decrease in impervious area. If this is considered infeasible, the applicant must submit a Hydrology and Hydraulics report. The report must demonstrate that the project mitigates the increase in peak runoff through the use of acceptable LID features.
E-18 [Utility Service]
If any new or modified connections to the water or sewer mains in the public right-of-way are proposed, additional plan sets, and review fees may be required.
E-19 [Stormwater Management Plan]
The applicant must submit an updated SWMP for Standard Projects. A BMP Site Plan must be included and attached to the SWMP.
E-20 [Stormwater Compliance]
Stormwater compliance requirements are subject to change based on adoption of revisions to state and local regulations. Recent changes to the regulations include the following:
revised Priority Development Project definitions, additional/revised hydromodification mitigation requirements, and increased emphasis on on-site retention/re-use. These changes could significantly impact the design, type, and size of BMPs necessary for compliance. The new regional MS4 Permit (Order No. R9-2013-0001) was adopted May 8, 2013.
E-21 [Existing Easements]
Prior to issuance of Building Permits the applicant must provide a letter from any easement holder authorizing the proposed improvements within the existing easement. 49 March 26, 2025 Item 2 98 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Resolution No. DRB-2025-xx
DRB24-006
E-22 [Material Hauling]
For material delivery vehicles equal to, or larger than two-axle, six-tire single unit truck (SU) size or larger as defined by FHWA Standards, the applicant shall submit a truck hauling route that conforms to City of Del Mar Municipal Code or to the approval of the City Engineer. A letter from the applicant confirming the intention to use this hauling route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and the City Engineering Department, and approved, prior to the issuance of any City permits. All material hauling activities including but not limited to, adherence to the approved route, hours of operation, staging of materials, dust control and street maintenance shall be the responsibility of the applicant. All storage and office trailers will be kept off the public right-of-way. Tracking of dirt onto City streets and walks will not be allowed. The applicant must provide an approved method of cleaning tires and trimming loads on-site. Any job-related dirt and/or debris that impacts the public right-of-way shall be removed immediately. No wash down of dirt into storm drains will be allowed. All material hauling activities shall be done in accordance with applicable City ordinances and conditions of approval. Violation of such may be cause for suspension of work.
E-23 [Construction Worker Parking]
The applicant shall provide a construction-parking plan that minimizes the effect of construction worker parking in the neighborhood and shall include an estimate of the number of workers that will be present on the site during the various phases of construction and indicate where sufficient off-street parking will be utilized and identify any locations for off-site material deliveries. Said plan shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and the City Engineer prior to issuance of City permits and shall be enforced during construction. Failure to enforce the parking plan may result in suspension of the City permits.
E-24 [Site conditions]
E-24A The applicant shall restrict hours of work for the use of heavy equipment during grading and improvements between the hours of 7AM to 7PM Monday -Friday and 9 AM- 7PM Saturdays, this includes the warmup of equipment. Sunday and City holiday work is prohibited;
E-24B Any relocation or under grounding of SDG&E facilities or other utilities shall be done at the applicant’s expense;
E-24C All construction activities undertaken shall comply with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. In cases of conflict between the City’s Municipal Code, these standard conditions of approval, the governing priority shall be, to the extent legally permitted, as follows: 1) City’s Municipal Code regulations; 2) City’s General Plan; 3) Standard Conditions; and
E-24D No storage of trash cans or recycling bins shall be permitted within the public rightof-way, 50 March 26, 2025 Item 2 99 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Resolution No. DRB-2025-xx
DRB24-006
E-25 [Revisions to plans]
Any proposed change to the approved layout/use/activity on the site or any increase in the developed area of the site or any expansion or modification to the approved development, including changes to structures building locations, elevations, parking allocation, or landscaping shall require that a construction change be submitted to City for review and approval.
E-26 [Survey Monuments]
E-26A The perpetuation of survey monuments is required and intended to protect both public and private property rights in accordance with federal and state law.
Monument perpetuation shall be performed with every Drainage Plan and Street Improvement Plan. A land surveyor shall, upon completion of Drainage Plan, or new improvements, reset any monuments that have been destroyed due to the construction of the project and must file a post-construction Corner Record or Record of Survey with the County Surveyor.
E-26B A hold will be placed on the final inspection for all right of way permits and other types of permits that affect survey monuments. When Engineering Department receive confirmation of the filing of the post-construction Corner Record, or from the land surveyor, the hold will be released, and final inspection can be performed. 51 March 26, 2025 Item 2 100 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Resolution No. DRB-2025-xx
DRB24-006
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Design Review Board of the City of Del Mar this 26th day of March, 2025 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
RECUSED: Board member Goodkind, Prater, and Jensen
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________________________
Greg Rothnem, Chairperson
Design Review Board
City of Del Mar, California
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Karen Brindley
Planning and Community Development Director
City of Del Mar, California
52 March 26, 2025 Item 2
_____________________________
Glenn Warren, Chair
101 July 7, 2025 Item 16
From: Jim Sneed <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 5:07 PM
To: Jean Crutchfield; Robert Scott
Subject: DRB 483 Avenida Primavera
Attachments: Scan_20250324_164744.pdf; SKM_C25825032416460.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.
Jean,
Please accept these two modifications to the referenced DRB application (see attachments):
1: Omit the two "Fruitless Olive" trees (mature ht. 25') in the front yard setback 2: Omit the chimney projection and change the fireplace to a direct vent heating appliance.
Jim Sneed
Bokal & Sneed Architects
858-481-8244
2 102 July 7, 2025 Item 16
From: Alice Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 10:34 PM
To: Jean Crutchfield
Subject: Parnell Home, 483 Avenida Primavera
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 Members of the Design Review Board,
I am writing to lend my support for the proposed remodel at 483 Avenida Primavera. I live directly across the street at 484 Avenida Primavera. We purchased the home in 1978 and have lived here since. I believe the applicant has shown great respect and consideration towards the neighbors and the community in their approach to the proposed development. It remains a single story, is compatible with the homes on the southside of Primavera, the design is in keeping with the coastal aesthetic, and bulk and mass is minimized. I believe they intend to live in their new home, and will be good neighbors and good members of the community.
After living for decades in Del Mar and witnessing the trend for large and larger and more expensive homes with basements and multiple ADUs beyond the 25% FAR, this is an extremely modest new home. Likewise I haven't found any reason to suspect there will be any future 'Spite Hedges" nor has there been any deliberate and intentional attempt to create vegetative screens prior to the design review process. Sadly, the real damaging vegetation was maliciously planted 25 years ago on another property.
I strongly hope that you will consider approving this project. It promises to be a lovely home and through collaboration and good will the end result will be enhanced ocean views and scenic vistas for all.
With respect and with many thanks,
Alice Brown
484 Avenida Primavera
Del Mar, CA 92014
2 103 July 7, 2025 Item 16
June 30, 2025
Mayor Terry Gaasterland and the City of Del Mar City Council C/o Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk City of Del Mar
1050 Camino del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
RE: Appeal of the Design Review Board’s Approval of DRB24-006 The Parnell Family Home
483 Avenida Primavera, Del Mar, CA 92014
Dear Mayor Gaasterland and Members of the City Council, Lisa Parnell is the owner of 483 Avenida Primavera and is proposing to remodel and make a one-story addition to the existing home on the property. What follows is: 1) an overview of the project design home involving a modest one-story addition and remodel of an existing home; 2) a summary of the Design Review Board’s deliberative process which led to unanimous approval of the project; 3) rationale for why the project is consistent with the Design Review Ordinance (DMMC Chapter
23.08) by preserving neighbors’ ocean views and respecting neighborhood character; and 4) a discussion of the dangerous precedent that could be set if the City Council overturns the DRB’s unanimous decision approving the project.
PROJECT DESIGN SUMMARY
The Parnell Project consists of a modest remodel and one-story addition to the existing home, in a tasteful beach cottage design aesthetic. In essence, this project replaces the existing 70-year-old house with a modernized version of itself. The design abates an existing setback encroachment nonconformity on the east side and as is shown in Attachment A, the project complies with all Zoning and Design Guidelines recommendations.
As a one-story design, the project respects the existing neighborhood character and pattern of development. The maximum building height is 17’-6” and the ceiling plate heights are at 8’-6”; both well within zoning and the City Design Guidelines Recommendations. Support for the project has been received from several immediate property owners.
ATTACHMENT D
104 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Letter to Del Mar City Council
RE: Appeal of the DRB’s Approval of DRB24-006
The Parnell Family Home, 483 Avenida Primavera, Del Mar, CA 92014 June 30, 2025
2 A picture is worth a thousand words and the below Avenida Primavera street elevation rendering shows just how modest and tasteful the home will be.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DELIBERATIONS AND UNANIMOUS DECISION TO APPROVE DRB24-006
On March 26, 2025, the Design Review Board assessed the project and considered view concerns raised by the Appellants. As reflected in the DRB minutes from the March 26 hearing, the Appellants raised their view blockage claims to the Design Review Board and the DRB fully assessed and deliberated on all view claims, and the Board found there is no unreasonable impairment with respect to the Fouquet’s ocean view. The Board was detailed, disciplined, and deliberative in their findings and conclusions, and their approval was unanimous (4-0-3). There is nothing in the DRB’s findings, deliberations, conclusions, or decision to suggest the City Council should find otherwise.
The Appellants; however, continue to disagree with the DRB’s conclusions and want to relitigate by making an absurd assertion that their view of a neighbor’s vegetation two doors down constitutes a “primary scenic view.” They make this claim only after the Board correctly assessed the ocean view from their home and found no unreasonable view blockage. In fact, when a DRB member visited the Fouquet home to assess the “view,” an occupant of the home asked, “what view?” 105 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Letter to Del Mar City Council
RE: Appeal of the DRB’s Approval of DRB24-006
The Parnell Family Home, 483 Avenida Primavera, Del Mar, CA 92014 June 30, 2025
3 APPELLANTS’ UNSUBSTANTIATED VIEW CLAIMS
The Design Review Ordinance, Chapter 23.08 of the Municipal Code defines a “primary scenic view” as “a view of the ocean, the community, lagoons, canyons or other scenic vistas from the primary living area of a residence” (DMMC 23.08.040-B). In this case the DRB appropriately assessed the project on their long-standing practice of assessing the “blue water” ocean view from the Fouquet home.
Under the current definitions under the Del Mar Codes, the argument that a neighbor’s cluster of (non-native) banana plants is the Appellant’s view does not comport with the DRO definitions for a scenic view or the DRB’s long-standing review practices in such matters. Designating a neighbor’s vegetation as a “primary scenic view,” as the Appellants are trying to assert, would also set a dangerous precedent by making the definition of “scenic view” ever the more nebulous.
OVERTURNING A UNANIMOUS DRB DECISION SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENCE The prospect of the City Council overturning a unanimous DRB decision could set an even more dangerous precedent by sending the wrong message that Applicants and Appellants can simply bypass the DRB process if they do not like how the Board decided on a particular project. In my years tracking the development review process in Del Mar, the City Council has never been in the practice of over-turning a DRB decision because they disagree with the DRB’s decision-making process; doing so undermines the hard work and integrity of the Board.
Instances when City Council has set de novo appeal hearings typically involve procedural matters or new information that the DRB did not have that might have otherwise affected the decision of the lower body. But such is not the case here. The public record speaks for itself and nothing in the record or in the Appellants’ correspondence suggests undoing the good work of the Design Review Board.
The Appellants disagree with the DRB’s decision and are in effect asking the Council to overrule the DRB’s wisdom on the matter of views, which the Board fully considered and capably deliberated upon. Therefore, and in conclusion, the merits of the appeal are unfounded and the DRB’s decision to approve DRB24-006 should be affirmed.
Please contact architect Jim Sneed at (858) 481-8244 or me at (858) 692-8832 if you have any questions or should any City Council member wish to schedule a site visit to come have a look around.
106 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Letter to Del Mar City Council
RE: Appeal of the DRB’s Approval of DRB24-006
The Parnell Family Home, 483 Avenida Primavera, Del Mar, CA 92014 June 30, 2025
4 Respectfully,
cc: Karen Brindley, Planning and Community Development Director Matt Bator, Principal Planner
Jean Crutchfield, Associate Planner
Attachment A – Zoning and Design Guidelines Consistency Table 107 July 7, 2025 Item 16
Attachment A
108 July 7, 2025 Item 16
COMPLIANCE WITH DEL MAR ZONING AND
DESIGN REVIEW ORDINANCE GUIDELINES
STANDARD REQUIRED /
RECOMMENDED
PROPOSED HOME CONCLUSION
FRONT YARD SETBACK 20’-0” 20’0” COMPLIES
REAR YARD SETBACK 25’-0” 48’7” COMPLIES
SIDEYARD SETBACK 7’-6” 7’-6” COMPLIES
LOT COVERAGE 40% (3,461 SF) 33.4% (2,891 SF) COMPLIES
FAR 25% (2,163 SF) 24.2% (2,159 SF) COMPLIES
FAR-EXEMPT COVERED AREAS 15% of FAR (324 SF) 10.6% (230 SF) COMPLIES HEIGHT 26’-0” 17’-6” COMPLIES
CEILING PLATE HEIGHTS 8-0” – 10’0” 8’-6” COMPLIES
PARKING 2 Garage Spaces 2 Garage Spaces COMPLIES
MINIMUM LANDSCAPE AREA
PERCENTAGE
45% 47% COMPLIES
109 July 7, 2025 Item 16
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Matt Bator, AICP, Principal Planner
Karen Brindley, Planning and Community Development Director Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: July 7, 2025
SUBJECT: Introduction of an Ordinance to Amend Municipal Code Chapters 23.50 and
23.51 Related to Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Regulations (A25-001) and Amendments to Chapters 30.04 and 30.86 Establishing a Maximum Allowed Height for Hedges (ZA25-001)
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
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 amend related code regulations of the City’s Tree regulations within DMMC Chapter 23.50 (A25-025); and 2) Amend DMMC Chapters 30.04 (Definitions) to define the “Hedge” and 30.86 (Supplemental Regulations) to limit the maximum allowed height of hedges.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 includes updating Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 23.51, also known as the Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight (TSVS) Ordinance. On October 7, 2024, staff presented to the City Council nine “Guiding Principles” to inform and influence the TSVS update process. The City Council received public testimony, discussed the draft Guiding Principles, and provided additional direction to ensure that the preservation of “sunlight,” in addition to scenic views, is given equal weight in the Guiding Principles and revisions to the TSVS regulations. The Guiding Principles are attached as Attachment B.
Following the City Council’s acceptance of the Guiding Principles, staff met with the City Attorney’s office regarding the legal vulnerabilities of the City’s existing TSVS regulations and processes, and reoccurring issues that have arisen while processing TSVS applications since the original adoption of the TSVS Ordinance (No. 747) in July 2002.
Additionally, staff reviewed information and reports pertaining to view regulations in twenty-seven (27) other jurisdictions, identifying common implementation issues and how the respective regulations have been modified and improved over time (Attachment C). 1 July 7, 2025 Item 17
City Council Agenda Report
A25-001/ZA25-001
July 7, 2025
Through the above-mentioned research, staff identified a series of amendments/revisions that would address long-standing concerns with the City’s current TSVS regulations, while implementing the Council-adopted Guiding Principles to make the TSVS application and review process more objective, fair and cost-equitable for applicants. Staff also met with the City Council’s Planning Process Subcommittee (composed of then-Mayor Druker and Deputy Mayor Gaasterland) as part of the issue identification process.
On December 2, 2024, staff sought City Council input and direction prior to proceeding with draft language to amend the TSVS regulations (Chapter 23.51) and associated sections of the DMMC. Five specific policy issues were presented to the City Council with staff recommendations for how to address them. The five policy issues related to: 1) the time period within which view restoration can be sought; 2) the required findings of fact for determining unreasonable obstruction of scenic views and/or sunlight; 3) cost apportionment; 4) processing obstruction claims involving City trees; and 5) unregulated hedge heights. Along with the five policy inquiries/discussions, the City Council was also provided with a list of additional sections and components of the TSVS regulations that were identified by staff for proposed revision. The agenda report from December 2, 2024, City Council meeting has been included as Attachment D for reference.
The City Council was receptive to staff’s identification of pertinent issues that have been raised in the community over time and the recommendations for addressing those issues, and directed staff to proceed with drafting the amendments, as recommended.
Planning Commission Review and Recommendations
The Planning Commission reviewed, discussed, and suggested revisions to staff’s proposed TSVS code amendments over the course of three separate, regularly scheduled Planning Commission meetings. Many of the Commission’s recommended edits or revisions to the draft amendments, which addressed issues such as refining definitions, application material requirements, acceptable scenic view documentation, cost apportionment and others, have been incorporated into the draft replacement of Chapter 23.51 included in Attachment A.
However, there were three sections of the draft TSVS regulations where the Planning Commission could not come to a consensus for a recommendation, which are identified and discussed below.
Public correspondence provided to the Planning Commission during its three reviews of the draft amendments has been included as Attachment E. From the written and verbal testimony provided by the public, there were two proposed code sections discussed by the Planning Commission that members of the public wished to see revised, but the Commission could not come to a consensus for acceptance of the revision and request that the City Council consider whether they should be included in the replacement TSVS regulations.
2 July 7, 2025 Item 17
City Council Agenda Report
A25-001/ZA25-001
July 7, 2025
The first of the public suggestions considered by the Planning Commission where there was a lack of consensus was that any time a restorative action involves “Tree Removal,” replacement tree or like vegetation should be required in an appropriate manner on the lot.
The second public suggestion discussed by the Planning Commission where there was a lack of consensus relates to staff’s proposed amendment (23.51.070.L) that when considering what restorative action is most appropriate to reasonably return an obstructed scenic view, the Planning Commission should consider whether or not the offending Tree is on the City’s discouraged tree list. The suggestion came from a group letter of over fifty residents concerned that the added code subsection could lead to the unnecessary removal of mature trees such as eucalyptus and that the City’s “Discouraged Trees” list has not been updated in over twenty years.
The third issue on which the Planning Commission could not reach consensus is the proposed (new) section for the TSVS that formalizes and codifies the process for dealing with claims of unreasonable scenic view or sunlight obstruction by “City” trees. The Planning Commission discussed the appropriateness of proposed DMMC Section
23.51.150 for application in instances when “City trees” may obstruct private scenic views or sunlight access. During the discussion of this proposed new section of the TSVS regulations, concern was raised that resolving scenic view and sunlight obstruction caused by City trees should not require any formal application efforts or cost from residents, while other Commissioners were less concerned with the application process but felt that a more formalized “early consultation” process with City staff should be included with the new code section.
Finally, the Planning Commission made a formal recommendation to the City Council that staff’s proposed amendments to DMMC Chapters 30.04 and 30.86 that would limit the maximum allowed height of “hedges” within required setback (“yard”) areas of a lot should not be considered or adopted by the City Council. Discussion leading to the Commission’s recommendation included concerns that, even with a “grandfathering” clause, limiting hedges to the same height as fences would have a negative impact on Del Mar’s existing community character.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
The proposed amendments to DMMC Chapter 23.51 (TSVS) address the issues presented to the City Council on December 2, 2024, and are discussed in Attachment D.
In order to thoroughly address all issues raised and discussed with the City Council, it is also necessary to amend specific sections of DMMC Chapter 23.50 (Trees), and Zone Code Chapters 30.04 (Definitions) and 30.86 (Supplemental Regulations). Clean versions of proposed amendments to those Chapters are attached to a draft Planning Commission Resolution, which is included as Exhibit “C” to this agenda report. Given the large number of proposed changes to DMMC Chapter 23.51 (TSVS), staff proposes that 3 July 7, 2025 Item 17
City Council Agenda Report
A25-001/ZA25-001
July 7, 2025
the City Council repeal and replace Chapter 23.51 in its entirety, and therefore, has not provided a redlined version of the proposed amendments. The proposed replacement of Chapter 23.51 is included with the draft Ordinance included as Attachment A. A copy of the current TSVS Chapter is included as Attachment F to this agenda report for reference and a detailed summary of the more significant revisions follows below.
Municipal Code Amendment A 25-001 – Repeal and Replace DMMC Chapter 23.51 Proposed amendments to repeal and replace the existing TSVS regulations under DMMC Chapter 23.51 are summarized below (and identified by their existing DMMC Section numbers) and are followed by associated Guiding Principles where applicable:
23.51.010 (Purpose) / Now (Purpose and Application of Chapter) • Section renamed “Purpose and Application of Chapter.” • Modifies regulations to be less repetitive and more succinct. • Criteria for application eligibility (currently Section 23.51.030 – Rights Established) has been relocated to this Section, and now provides:
o Applications may be filed to restore scenic views and/or sunlight that existed on or after the date: (i) applicant acquired their property; or (ii) August 1, 2002 (the effective date of City TSVS Ordinance No. 747), whichever is later.
o Creates an exception to allow the ability for property owners who inherited a property to have the same application rights as the owners the property was inherited from.
o Language to clarify and affirm that approvals of TSVS applications and associated restorative actions do not run with the land, and rights provided by such approvals terminate upon the sale of applicant’s property.
Associated Guiding Principle - #1: Ensure administration of the new regulations will not overburden City resources (including staff/legal resources).
23.51.020 (Definitions)
• Definitions added for: Application, City, City Tree, Director, Hedge, Parkway, Solar Energy System, and Tree Owner.
• Definitions removed for: Vegetation (proposed definition for “Tree” now encompasses vegetation) and Windowing (trimming technique is no longer included as a potential restorative action).
• Definition of “Scenic View” modified to include “backcountry (eastern)” views and to exclude views caused by illegal activity and/or natural disaster or causes, such as trees falling during storms, removal due to pest or disease infestation, natural death, etc.
• Other definitions include minor amendments and refined meanings. 4 July 7, 2025 Item 17
City Council Agenda Report
A25-001/ZA25-001
July 7, 2025
Associated Guiding Principle #4: Incorporate a clear and expedited process for applications involving “City” trees and “Protected” trees.
Associated Guiding Principle #7: Balance and acknowledge the needs of private view/sunlight protection with all benefits provided by tree and vegetation growth, the goals of the Climate Action Plan, the goals and provisions of the Design Review process and the City’s tree policies and regulations.
Associated Guiding Principle #8: Address the applicability of “accidental” views (downed trees, fire impacts, etc.) and “good neighbor” view creation in the context of view rights established by the regulations.
23.51.030 (Rights Established) / Now (Private Property Owner Maintenance of Adjacent Trees Located in Public Right-of-Way)
• Existing regulations moved to Section 23.51.010.
• Section renamed “Private Property Owner Maintenance of Adjacent Trees Located in Public Right-of-Way.”
• Requires trees/vegetation located within the public right-of-way (between a private property boundary and an improved street edge) to be maintained by the adjacent private property owner (identified as the “Tree Owner”), and not the City.
Associated Guiding Principle #4: Incorporate a clear and expedited process for applications involving “City” trees and “Protected” trees.
23.51.040 (Procedure) / Now (Process for Alleging Obstruction of Scenic Views and/or Sunlight)
• Section renamed “Process for Alleging Obstruction of Scenic Views and/or Sunlight.”
• Section reorganized into three main areas addressing: application submittal requirements, notification of application provided to Tree Owner, and the hearing/decision process.
• Application submittal process revised to require pre- and post-obstruction photographs of scenic views and/or sunlight.
• For applications involving sunlight obstruction, requires a shade study. • For applications involving scenic view obstruction, requires a tree survey performed by a certified arborist providing the tree’s species, variety, approximate age health and structure, life expectancy, and a recommendation for restoration of scenic views and/or sunlight.
• Prohibits “group” applications.
Associated Guiding Principle #1: Ensure administration of the new regulations will not overburden City resources (including staff/legal resources). 5 July 7, 2025 Item 17
City Council Agenda Report
A25-001/ZA25-001
July 7, 2025
Associated Guiding Principle #2: Establish objective application criteria and processing framework.
Associated Guiding Principle #3: Rely upon precise, objective, and documentable decision findings to reduce appeals and legal challenges to the greatest extent possible.
23.51.050 (Standards for Determining Unreasonable Obstruction) / Now (Criteria for Determining Unreasonable Obstruction of Scenic Views)
• Section renamed “Criteria for Determining Unreasonable Obstruction of Scenic Views.”
• Deletes the current provision requiring two findings to be made by the Planning Commission: (1) Applicant made satisfactory efforts to resolve the dispute with the Tree Owner prior to filing a TSVS application, and (2) the alleged obstruction is unreasonable.
• Deletes the current provision including 17 factors for the Planning Commission to consider when making a decision on TSVS applications since 10 of those factors are already located elsewhere in the Chapter (Section 23.51.060), where they provide criteria to consider when determining the appropriate method of scenic view and/or sunlight restoration.
• Incorporates a table that identifies the allowable percentages of scenic view obstruction based on the type of scenic view (e.g., White Water, Blue Water, or Horizon/ Backcountry) and extent (view angle) of a scenic view. This methodology is currently used in the Citywide Design Guidelines for providing objective criteria for determining “unreasonable obstruction” of primary scenic views by proposed structures going through the Design Review process.
• When deemed necessary of the Planning Director or Planning Commission in order to verify consistency with the above-mentioned table, a quantifiable exhibit demonstrating the percentage of view loss could be required.
Associated Guiding Principle #1: Ensure administration of the new regulations will not overburden City resources (including staff/legal resources); Associated Guiding Principle #2: Establish objective application criteria and processing framework.”
Associated Guiding Principle #3: Rely upon precise, objective, and documentable decision findings to reduce appeals and legal challenges to the greatest extent possible.
23.51.060 (Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action) / Now (Findings for Determining Unreasonable Obstruction of Scenic Views and/or Sunlight) • Existing regulations moved to Section 23.51.070 (Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action).
6 July 7, 2025 Item 17
City Council Agenda Report
A25-001/ZA25-001
July 7, 2025
• Section renamed “Findings for Determining Unreasonable Obstruction of Scenic Views and/ or Sunlight.”
• The proposed findings replace the 17 factors for consideration by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, with objective findings that rely on the quantifiable information (Table 1 of proposed Section 23.51.045), and to ensure the application complies with all required application eligibility criteria. • Proposed new findings are separately categorized for decisions involving:
obstruction of scenic views from an applicant’s primary living area; obstruction of sunlight access to an applicant’s primary living area; and obstruction of sunlight access to an applicant’s solar energy system.
Associated Guiding Principle #1: Ensure administration of the new regulations will not overburden City resources (including staff/legal resources); Associated Guiding Principle #2: Establish objective application criteria and processing framework.”
Associated Guiding Principle #3: Rely upon precise, objective, and documentable decision findings to reduce appeals and legal challenges to the greatest extent possible.
23.51.070 (Hierarchy of Restorative Actions) / Now (Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Actions)
• Section renamed “Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action” • Includes regulations under existing Section 23.51.060. • Contains minor wording changes and clean-up, along with one additionally proposed criterion to be considered by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, when determining appropriate restorative action (whether or not the subject tree is listed as “discouraged” by City policy).
Associated Guiding Principle #7: Balance and acknowledge the needs of private view/sunlight protection with all benefits provided by tree and vegetation growth, the goals of the Climate Action Plan, the goals and provisions of the Design Review process and the City’s tree policies and regulations.
23.51.080 (Restorative Work and Allocation of Costs) / Now (Determination of Restorative Action Work to be Performed)
• Section renamed “Determination of Restorative Action Work to be Performed.” • Includes regulations included in existing Section 23.51.070. • Provides for Planning Commission consideration of staff and certified arborist recommendations when determining appropriate restorative action. • The rest of this section is mostly unchanged except for minor reordering of subsections and removal of windowing as a type of restorative action to consider. 7 July 7, 2025 Item 17
City Council Agenda Report
A25-001/ZA25-001
July 7, 2025
23.51.090 (Ongoing Maintenance) / Now (Allocation of Costs and Procedures for the Payment of Restorative Action Work)
• Section renamed “Allocation of Costs and Procedures for the Payment of Restorative Action Work.”
• Applicant remains responsible for all fees and costs associated with filing a TSVS application.
• Applicant is no longer responsible for 100% of costs relating to initial restorative action work or ongoing maintenance costs.
• Applicant and Tree Owner are each responsible for 50% of costs relating to initial restorative action work and cost of Tree Survey if view obstruction is determined to be unreasonable.
• Tree Owner is responsible for 100% of costs relating to initial restorative action work, including the full cost of the Tree Survey if Tree Owner refuses to participate in early attempts to resolve the dispute, including offers to mediate. • Tree Owner is responsible for 100% of ongoing maintenance costs ordered by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal (after completion of initial restorative action work).
Associated Guiding Principle #5: Ensure an equitable cost allocation process to initiate the view/sunlight restoration process, perform view restoration work, and maintain restored scenic views; and
Associated Guiding Principle #6: Encourage and create a pathway for neighbors to seek an alternative route to successful dispute resolution outside of the City TSVS process.
23.51.100 (Appeal)
• Minor wording adjustments.
23.51.110 (Enforcement)
• Minor wording adjustments.
• Timing of restorative work language removed, as it is covered in Section
23.51.090.
23.51.120 (Limitations) / Now (Liability)
• Section renamed “Liability.”
• Existing regulations governing limitations moved to Section 23.51.140. • Clarifies the City is not responsible or liable for the enforcement of any private agreements or orders from another person or entity regarding TSVS disputes.
Associated Guiding Principle #1: Ensure administration of the new regulations will not overburden City resources (including staff/legal resources); 8 July 7, 2025 Item 17
City Council Agenda Report
A25-001/ZA25-001
July 7, 2025
23.51.130 (Indemnification)
• Requires applicant to indemnify and hold the City harmless from claims relating to the TSVS process.
Associated Guiding Principle #1: Ensure administration of the new regulations will not overburden City resources (including staff/legal resources);
23.51.140 (Liability) / Now (Limitations)
• No change to text; regulations relocated from existing Section 23.51.120.
Associated Guiding Principle #1: Ensure administration of the new regulations will not overburden City resources (including staff/legal resources);
23.51.150 (Process for Alleging Obstruction of Scenic Views and/or Sunlight by City Trees)
• Provides a codified process by which residents may allege unreasonable obstruction caused by City trees in an attempt to restore and preserve their scenic views and/or sunlight.
• Requires submittal of an application, evaluation by the Planning Director, Public Works Director, and City Arborist.
• Appealable decision and restorative action is made by Planning Director. • Restorative action is performed by the City.
• Financial responsibility of the work is shared between the applicant and the City, each responsible for fifty (50) percent of the cost.
Associated Guiding Principle #4: Incorporate a clear and expedited process for applications involving “City” trees and “Protected” trees.
Associated Guiding Principle #7: Balance and acknowledge the needs of private view/sunlight protection with all benefits provided by tree and vegetation growth, the goals of the Climate Action Plan, the goals and provisions of the Design Review process and the City’s tree policies and regulations.
Municipal Code Amendment A 25-001 – Proposed Amendments to DMMC Chapter
23.50:
In staff’s review of the TSVS process with the City Attorney’s Office, it was determined that in instances where a “Protected Tree”, as defined in DMMC Chapter 23.50, must be removed as the only way to adequately restore an obstructed scenic view or sunlight access, there should be an exemption from the requirement to also obtain a Tree Removal Permit from the City after the TSVS determination. Therefore, new language was added to DMMC Section 23.50.050 stating that no Tree Removal Permit is required 9 July 7, 2025 Item 17
City Council Agenda Report
A25-001/ZA25-001
July 7, 2025
to remove or relocate a tree when the removal/relocation was ordered as a restorative action by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, in response to a TSVS application. Additionally, staff proposes removing language referring to the TSVS process for permit issuance in DMMC Section 23.50.080. A redlined version of these proposed revisions to DMMC Chapter 23.50 are attached as Exhibit “G” to this Agenda Report.
Zone Code Amendment ZA25-001 – Proposed Amendments to Zoning Chapters
30.04 and 30.86
As was presented to the City Council for discussion during the December 2, 2024, meeting (Attachment D), Title 30 of the DMMC, also known as the “Zoning Code,” is proposed to be amended to limit the maximum permitted height of a hedge within the required yard/setback areas of a lot. This is accomplished by adding a definition for “hedge” under DMMC Section 30.04.080 (“H” Words and Phrases Defined). Additionally, the word “hedge” would be inserted into pertinent subsections of Section 30.86.090 (Fences/Retaining Walls), which would have the effect of limiting hedges to the same maximum allowed height as fences and retaining walls located in the required front, side, or rear yards (setbacks) of a lot. Of the 27 jurisdictions reviewed as part of the process to amend the TSVS Ordinance, almost half of those jurisdictions regulated the maximum allowed height of hedges.
During the December 2, 2024, City Council meeting, some of the Councilmembers raised concerns that many tall hedges exist in the City, which are well-beyond the maximum height allowed for fences and retaining walls. To address this issue and concern, DMMC Section 30.86.090 would include an exemption for hedges greater than a certain height that exist on the date the Ordinance becomes effective. Those existing over-height hedges would be allowed to remain. However, any new or replacement vegetation meeting the definition of a “hedge” would be required to adhere to the new limitations.
Redlined versions of the proposed revisions to DMMC Chapters 30.04 and 30.86 are attached as Attachments “H” and “I” (respectively).
DMMC Section 30.86.220 requires that an action to amend the Zoning Code be accompanied by three specific findings. Accordingly, findings to support the proposed Zoning Code amendments are included in the draft Ordinance (Attachment A).
As is discussed earlier in this report, the Planning Commission has recommended against the City pursuing a regulatory height limit to hedges as proposed in Attachment A.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item. 10 July 7, 2025 Item 17
City Council Agenda Report
A25-001/ZA25-001
July 7, 2025
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The requested action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (General Rule) of the CEQA Guidelines because CEQA only applies to projects with the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
With the proposed Ordinance, there is no change in baseline environmental conditions or potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. An Initial Study evaluation concluded that no environmental factors would be potentially affected by the TSVS and Zoning amendments contemplated by the City Council. A Notice of Exemption will be prepared identifying that the activity is covered by the common-sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
HOUSING IMPACT:
The proposed amendment to the TSVS regulations and addition of maximum height limits for hedges within required yard (setback) areas do not involve the development or reduction of dwelling units. Therefore, no impact to housing would result from adoption of the proposed Ordinance.
NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
Updating the Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Ordinance is an identified Tier 2 Council priority for Fiscal Year 2024-25.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Draft Ordinance
Attachment B – Guiding Principles
Attachment C – Comparative Review of View Ordinances from other Jurisdictions Attachment D – December 2, 2024, City Council Agenda Report Attachment E – Public Correspondence sent to Planning Commission Attachment F – Existing DMMC Chapter 23.51 (Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight) Attachment G – Redlined DMMC Sections 23.50.050 and 23.50.080 Attachment H – Redlined DMMC Section 30.04.080 (H Words) Attachment I – Redlined DMMC Section 30.86.090 (Fences and Retaining Walls) 11 July 7, 2025 Item 17
ORDINANCE No. XXXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL
MAR, CALIFORNIA REPEALING AND REPLACING DEL MAR
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 23.51 AND AMENDING
CHAPTERS 23.50, 30.04, AND 30.86 OF THE DEL MAR
MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING TREES, SCENIC VIEWS AND
SUNLIGHT AND ESTABLISHING LIMITATIONS ON THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF HEDGES IN THE CITY
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar (City) submitted applications: A25-001, a request to repeal and replace Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 23.51 (Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight), and amend DMMC Chapter 23.50 (Trees); and ZA25-001, a request to amend DMMC Chapters 30.04 (Definitions) and 30.86 (Supplemental Regulations) under the Zoning Code (DMMC Title 30) regulating the maximum permitted height of hedges in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that trees, scenic views and plentiful sunlight contribute to the special character of Del Mar and to the overall quality of life enjoyed by residents, property owners and visitors. Trees, scenic views and sunlight produce a wide variety of significant psychological and tangible benefits, and contribute to the economic value and comfortable enjoyment of the community, neighborhoods and individual properties; and
WHEREAS, trees, vegetation and other landscaping provide aesthetic value as part of an urban forest, visual and auditory privacy, carbon sequestration, climate control, wind screening, soil stability, and wildlife habitat; and WHEREAS, scenic views, whether of the Pacific Ocean, nearby lagoons, canyons, the community and its landscapes and urban forest character, or other scenic vistas, encourage distinctive architecture, artistic expression, and provide creative inspiration; and
WHEREAS, plentiful sunlight provides an opportunity to utilize solar energy both actively and passively for home heating and climate control, reducing dependance on fossil fuels, and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2023, the Del Mar City Council discussed the importance of updating DMMC Chapter 23.51, also known as the Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight (TSVS) Ordinance, and directed staff to process applicable Municipal Code amendments; and
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2024, the Del Mar City Council discussed and adopted Guiding Principles for amending the City’s TSVS regulations and process; and
ATTACHMENT A
12 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Ordinance No. XXXX
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2024, the Del Mar City Council received an informational update from City staff regarding specific areas of DMMC Chapter 23.51 that need updating, and the City Council provided direction to staff regarding proposed issue areas within the Chapter to be amended; and
WHEREAS, at duly noticed public hearings on April 8, and May 13, 2025, the Del Mar Planning Commission accepted written and oral public testimony and discussed the proposed amendments to DMMC Chapters 23.50, 23.51, 30.04, and 30.86; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on June 10, 2025 the Del Mar Planning Commission was not able to reach consensus for recommended amendments that would: add DMMC Section 23.51.150, a process for alleging obstruction of Scenic Views and/or Sunlight by City Trees; pause the removal of trees on the City’s “Discouraged Tree List,” and require tree replacement should be mandatory when restorative action involves tree removal in proposed DMMC Section 23.51.080, and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on June 10, 2025, the Del Mar Planning Commission accepted additional written and oral public testimony, considered proposed amendments to the DMMC, and recommended that the City Council 1) adopt amendments to DMMC Chapters 23.50 and 23.51 related to Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight regulations (A 25-001) as recommended by staff with specific revisions to DMMC Sections 23.51.010.A.2.b; 23.51.010.B.2; 23.51.040.A.1.e; 23.51.050.B; 23.51.060.A.6;
23.51.060.A.7; 23.51.050.C; 23.51.090.B.1; and 23.51.090.B.2; 2) not adopt Zoning Code amendments to DMMC Chapters 30.04 and 30.86 related to the regulation of hedge height (ZA 25-001); and 3) approve a determination that adoption of the Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (General Rule); and
WHEREAS, at a duly notice public hearing on July 7, 2025, the City Council of the City of Del Mar accepted additional written and oral public testimony, considered the proposed amendments to the DMMC and the Planning Commission’s recommendations and areas where consensus for a recommendation could not be reached; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Del Mar hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION ONE: That DMMC Chapter 23.51 (Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight) be repealed and replaced with “Exhibit A” to this Ordinance.
SECTION TWO: That DMMC Section 23.50.050 be amended as follows:
23.50.050 Exemptions.
A. No permit is required by this Chapter for pruning or trimming of any tree on private property.
13 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Ordinance No. XXXX
B. No permit is required by this Chapter to cut down, remove, destroy, or move a Protected Tree under any of the following circumstances. This exemption does not apply to trees within the public right-of-way.
1. When measured two feet above ground level, (a) the Protected Tree has a single trunk circumference of 20 inches or less and is not a replacement tree pursuant to Section 23.50.090, or (b) the Protected Tree has multi-trunks having a total circumference of 30 inches or less and is not a replacement tree pursuant to Section 23.50.090.
2. When measured two feet above ground level, the trunk of the Protected Tree is located no more than 12 feet from the exterior wall of any Primary Structure or Accessory Structure.
3. When both trees are measured two feet above ground level, the Protected Tree is located no more than 12 feet from another Protected Tree. Only one of the Protected Trees may be removed.
C. No permit is required by this Chapter for the emergency removal of a Protected Tree for reasons of public health, safety and welfare. The Planning and Community Development Department shall be promptly notified of emergency removal.
D. No permit is required by this Chapter to remove a Protected Tree when the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal has determined by resolution that removal of the Tree is necessary to restore a scenic view and/or sunlight to a property pursuant to the provisions of DMMC Chapter 23.51.
SECTION THREE: That DMMC Section 23.50 080 be amended as follows:
23.50.080 Processing of Permits; Standards for Permits.
A. Application. A person who desires to cut down, remove, destroy, or move a Protected Tree shall make application for a Tree Removal Permit to the Planning and Community Development Department on a form provided by the City. A processing fee, established by resolution of the City Council, shall be required. The application shall contain the number, species, and size of the trees involved, a statement on the reason for the requested action, a site plan depicting the location of tree(s) proposed for removal and other trees located in the vicinity, and any other pertinent information determined necessary by the Planning and Community Development Director or Design Review Board. This additional information may include a report from a qualified, professional arborist selected and employed by the City. The applicant shall be required to reimburse the City for the cost of such a report.
B. Noticing. A notice of the filing of an application for a Tree Removal Permit shall be mailed by the City to persons owning property adjacent to the project site. The mailed notice of application shall advise persons of the date of action and that the application is available for public review at City Hall.
C. Action. The Director or the Design Review Board shall approve or conditionally approve a Tree Removal Permit if the Protected Tree is:
1. Dead, diseased or injured beyond reclamation, as certified by a tree condition report from an arborist;
14 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Ordinance No. XXXX
2. Crowded by other healthier protected trees; thinning (removal) would promote healthier growth in the trees to remain, as certified by a tree condition report from an arborist;
3. Interfering with existing utilities and/or primary structures, as certified by a report from the public utility operator or a structural engineer;
4. Causing substantial damage to a Primary or Accessory Structure or associated utilities, as certified by a structural engineer when applicable;
5. Interfering with existing improvements, and/or is a danger to the public health, safety, or welfare in the Central Commercial, Open Space Overlay Zone, or on public property or right-of-way;
6. Deemed a safety hazard in a tree condition report from a Certified Arborist. The report shall include a completed ISA-Hazard Evaluation Form or other methodology acceptable to the City of Del Mar, as well as the observations and opinions of the Arborist. The City reserves the right to retain a Certified Arborist, at the expense of the Applicant, when needed to review a hazardous tree determination;
7. Located within 30 feet of a Primary or Accessory Structure, when measured two feet above ground level, and the canopy of the tree cannot be reduced so as to:
(i) Avoid overhanging the roof of a Primary or Accessory Structure; (ii) Be at least ten feet from the canopy of any other tree; and (iii) Be at least ten feet from the chimney of any residence.
The feasibility of reducing the tree(s) canopy shall be determined by the City's Arborist and Fire Chief;
8. Voluntarily replaced in accordance with Subsection 23.50.090.A.1. The replacement tree(s) shall be indicated in a covenant on the property on which the tree(s) are located. The replacement tree(s) shall not be eligible for removal in accordance with this Code until it has attained a circumference of at least 20 inches when measured two feet above ground level; or
9. Obstructing proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal, as certified by a report from the project planner and determined by the Director of Planning and Community Development or the Design Review Board based on the following factors:
(i) Early consultation with the City;
(ii) Consideration of practical design alternatives;
(iii) Saving the Protected Tree eliminates all reasonable use of the property; or (iv) Saving the Protected Tree requires the removal of more desirable trees.
Notwithstanding the existence of Subsections 1. through 10. above, the Director or the Design Review Board may deny a Tree Removal Permit if any of the following conditions exist:
1. The tree removal will, even after the imposition of permit conditions, endanger the public health, safety, peace, or welfare;
2. The tree removal will have an adverse impact on the aesthetics of the area surrounding the proposed activity;
3. Reasonable alternatives to a concurrent development proposal exist which would eliminate the need to remove a Protected Tree; or 15 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Ordinance No. XXXX
4. The applicant has not agreed to perform the conditions of approval imposed by Section 23.050.090.
SECTION FOUR: In accordance with DMMC Section 30.86.220, Zoning Code Amendment ZA 25-001 is supported by the following findings:
1. That there are changed conditions since the previous zoning became effective to warrant other or additional zoning. Since the previous zoning became effective, the City of Del Mar has established regulations allowing for the restoration and preservation of residential scenic views that have been unreasonably obstructed by the growth of trees and other vegetation located on neighboring property, and limiting the allowed height of hedges similar to fences and retaining wall heights can further prevent the unreasonable obstruction of residential scenic views.
2. That the granting of such zoning will be in the interest or furtherance of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare, and will not adversely affect the established character of the surrounding neighborhood, nor be injurious to other properties in the vicinity in which the rezoned property is located. The regulation of hedge heights within required yards (setbacks) of properties as proposed will facilitate safe sight distances for vehicles entering onto public streets, preserve natural sunlight for active and passive solar collection for climate control and comfort, and will allow for existing hedges to remain at taller heights until their eventual demise and/or removal, thus preserving the established character of neighborhoods over time.
3. That the granting of such zoning conforms to the general purpose, planned use and intent of the adopted Community Plan, or any ordinance, regulation, or plan in effect to implement said Community Plan. Goal two (2), Objective B of the Del Mar Community Plan seeks to “insure that future development, whether Commercial or residential, does not detract from high quality vistas…by blocking views…” The proposed Zone Code Amendment will regulate the height of fence-like installations involving vegetation, which will serve to implement that objective and, therefore, will be in furtherance of the goals, objectives and policies of the Del Mar Community Plan.
SECTION FIVE: That DMMC Section 30.04.080 be amended as follows:
30.04.080 "H" Words and Phrases Defined.
A. Hedge shall mean generally dense vegetation so aligned as to form a physical barrier similar to a fence.
B. Height, Building or Structure. Building or structure height shall be the greatest vertical dimension computed by using any or all of the following, at any point within or around the structure:
1. The vertical distance from the lower of the natural or finished average adjoining grade to the highest part of the roof or structure.
2. The vertical distance from the lower of the natural or finished exterior adjoining grade to the highest part of the roof immediately above or of any structure located on such roof.
16 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Ordinance No. XXXX
3. The vertical distance from any point of the roof or structure to the natural grade directly below.
C. Historic Property, Designated Historic Landmark means any site so designated by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 30.58 of this Title.
D. Home Occupation means an occupation or business conducted entirely within the main building by a member of a family residing therein, conducted as an incidental use to the primary residential use thereof, and in which there is no sign used; no display; no stock in trade or commodity stored, rented or sold upon the premises; no person employed other than the member of the resident family; no deliveries made or other pedestrian or vehicular traffic generated; no mechanical equipment used or kept on the premises except those customarily found in the home; no commercial vehicle used or kept on the premises in connection with such home occupation or business.
E. Hotel means a building or group of buildings in which there are six or more guest rooms where lodging with or without meals is provided for compensation, and where no provision is made for cooking in any individual room or suite. "Hotel" shall include jails, hospitals, asylums, sanitariums, orphanages, prisons, detention homes, and similar buildings where human beings are housed and detained under legal or medical restraint.
SECTION SIX: That DMMC Section 30.86.090 be amended as follows:
30.86.090 Fences/Retaining Walls/Hedges.
The construction or installation of fences, retaining walls and entryway structures, and the planting or installation of hedges on properties within the City of Del Mar shall be subject to the following limitations and regulations:
A. Fences and Hedges in Residential Zones.
1. Fences and hedges located within the required front yard or side yard abutting a street shall not exceed the height of three and one-half feet, except that for every two feet that a fence or hedge is set back from the property line, its height may be increased by six inches, not to exceed a height of six feet, zero inches.
2. Fences and hedges located within the rear yard or interior side yard shall not exceed a total height of six feet, zero inches.
3. Fences and hedges located within the building area may be as high as the building within said area.
4. Notwithstanding other provisions of this Code, an entryway structure consisting of open work, such as a trellis, may be located within a required front or street side yard setback, provided such structure does not exceed the following maximum dimensions:
a. Maximum Height. Ten feet (as measured pursuant to the provisions for measurement of fence height specified in this Chapter); b. Maximum Width. Eight feet measured from outside dimensions parallel to the property line.
c. Maximum Depth. Five feet (measured from outside dimensions perpendicular to the property line).
17 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Ordinance No. XXXX
d. Maximum Enclosure. 50 percent of each vertical plane or overhead covering surrounding the structure. This means that a minimum of 50 percent of each vertical plane or overhead covering shall be open to light and air. The enclosure for each vertical plane or overhead covering shall be measured as a percentage of the total area of that vertical plane or overhead coverage of the trellis structure. This requirement for openness of construction shall not apply to the installation of an entryway structure consisting of a single set of two opposing vertical posts connected by a single horizontal cross-piece which meets the other provisions of this Section and which is constructed with post and cross-piece materials no greater than six inches in diameter or width.
No more than one entryway structure permitted pursuant to this Section may be constructed for each property line fronting a street.
Entryway structures which conform to the provisions of this Section shall be considered to be the same as a fence for purposes of determining the appropriate review process.
In addition to the other review requirements provided in this Chapter, an entryway structure proposed within a front or street side yard setback pursuant to this Section shall receive approval of the Director of Planning and Community Development. Such approval shall be given only if the Director finds that construction of the trellis within a front or street side yard setback will not threaten the public safety.
B. Fences and Hedges in Nonresidential Zones. Notwithstanding other provisions of this Chapter, fences constructed in all zones other than residential shall not exceed a total height of six feet, zero inches, except that walls or fences constructed within the building area and set back ten feet or more from the front property line and five feet or more from the side property line abutting a street may be as high as the building within said property line.
C. Fences Serving as Retaining Walls. The construction of any fence retaining more than three feet of earth or similar materials shall be designed or approved by a registered, professional civil or structural engineer or a registered architect, and/or otherwise conform to County specifications. A fence serving as a retaining wall shall not extend more than one foot above the material retained.
D. Calculation of Fence and Hedge Height. Fences and hedges located in all zones shall not exceed a maximum height as set forth herein. For purposes of this Section, fence and hedge height herein shall be calculated as the vertical distance between the elevation at the top of the fence or hedge and the elevation of the lower of the natural or finished adjacent grade when measured from the exterior facade(s) of such fence or hedge at any point. The exterior facade shall be considered to be that side of a fence or hedge which faces and is closest to adjacent properties and public rights-of-way.
E. Maximum Allowed Hedge Height for Existing Hedges. The maximum hedge heights permitted under this Section shall not apply to hedges that existed on a property as of __________, 2025, and that were at least one or more feet taller than the maximum hedge heights permitted under this Section. Any new or 18 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Ordinance No. XXXX
replacement hedge planted or installed after ____________, 2025 shall adhere to the maximum allowed hedge heights contained herein.
SECTION SEVEN:
This Ordinance was assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The City Council hereby finds that under Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that the provisions contained herein would not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION EIGHT :
This Ordinance was introduced by the City Council on July 7, 2025 SECTION NINE:
The City Clerk is directed to prepare and have published a summary of this Ordinance no less than five days prior to the consideration of its adoption and again within 15 days following adoption indicating votes cast.
SECTION TEN:
If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
SECTION ELEVEN:
Upon adoption, the Ordinance will take effect and be in force 30 days from the date of City Council adoption (“Effective Date”).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California at the Regular Meeting held this XX day of ___________, 2025. ____________________________
Terry Gaasterland, Mayor
City of Del Mar
19 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Ordinance No. XXXX
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF DEL MAR
I, SARAH KRIETOR, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. XXXX, which has been published pursuant to law, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the XX day of _______, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSE:
______________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
20 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Chapter 23.51 TREES, SCENIC VIEWS AND SUNLIGHT
23.51.010 Purpose and Application of Chapter.
A. Purpose.
1. The City recognizes that Trees, Scenic Views and plentiful Sunlight contribute to the special character of Del Mar and to the overall quality of life enjoyed by residents, property owners and visitors.
2. The City further recognizes that Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight produce a wide variety of significant psychological and tangible benefits, and contribute to the economic value and comfortable enjoyment of the community, neighborhoods and individual properties, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Trees, vegetation and other landscaping provide aesthetic value as part of an urban forest, visual and auditory privacy, carbon sequestration, climate control, wind screening, soil stability, and wildlife habitat.
a. Scenic Views, whether of the Pacific Ocean, nearby lagoons, canyons, the community and its landscapes and urban forest character, or other scenic backcountry (eastern) vistas, encourage distinctive architecture, artistic expression, and provide creative inspiration. b. Plentiful Sunlight provides an opportunity to utilize solar energy both actively and passively for home heating and climate control, thereby reducing dependance on fossil fuels.
3. This Chapter acknowledges the benefits derived from Trees, Scenic Views and plentiful Sunlight, and balances the goal of maintaining each of them, when possible.
4. This Chapter further provides a process by which any Person may seek to preserve and restore Scenic Views and/or Sunlight when there is an unreasonable Obstruction of such Scenic Views and/or Sunlight by the growth, improper maintenance and/or installation of Trees and/or vegetation located on a property within three hundred (300) feet of the Applicant’s property line.
B. Application.
1. This Chapter applies to all properties within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Del Mar, excluding property owned by governmental entities not subject to the City’s regulatory jurisdiction.
2. Any Person shall have the right to file an Application with the City alleging Obstruction of preexisting Scenic Views and/or Sunlight, and further seeking Restorative Action to restore the preexisting Scenic Views and/or Sunlight that existed on or after the later of the following:
a. Date the Applicant acquired Applicant’s property; or Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No._____
21 July 7, 2025 Item 17
b. August 1, 2002 (the effective date of City Ordinance No. 747 relating to the adoption of the City’s initial Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight Ordinance).
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 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
23.51.020 Definitions.
For purposes of this Chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
A. Applicant shall mean any Person who owns residential real property within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Del Mar (or the legal occupant of said real property with written permission from the property owner of record to act on their behalf), who files an Application with the City pursuant to this Chapter.
B. Application shall mean a Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight Application filed with the City alleging that any Tree located on the property of another Person is causing an unreasonable Obstruction of the Applicant’s pre-existing Scenic Views and/or Sunlight, for which the Applicant seeks Restorative Action.
C. Certified Arboristshall mean a professional arborist who holds a valid ISA Certified Arborist credential from the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). For purposes of this Chapter, a Registered Consulting Arborist (RCA) with current membership in the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) shall be considered a “Certified Arborist” for purposes of providing professional tree surveys, reports, recommendations, and other technical information related to arboriculture.
D. City shall mean the City of Del Mar.
E. 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.
F. Crown Reduction/Shaping shall mean a method of comprehensive trimming that reduces a Tree's height and/or spread. Crown Reduction/Shaping entails the reduction of the top, sides or individual limbs of a Tree by removal of leaders or the longest portion of limbs to a lateral large enough to assume the terminal role.
G. Directorshall mean the City’s Planning and Community Development Director, or his or her designee.
H. Heading Back shall mean a pruning process whereby overall reduction of the mass of a Tree is achieved by modification to major limbs.
22 July 7, 2025 Item 17
I. Hedge shall mean generally dense vegetation so aligned as to form a physical barrier or fence.
J. Imminent Danger shall mean an immediate risk to the health, safety and/or welfare of any Person or property, whether privately- or publicly-owned.
K. Lacing shall mean a comprehensive method of Trimming that systematically and sensitively removes excess portions of a Tree and improves the structure of the Tree.
L. Mediation shall mean a private, voluntary process in which an impartial and qualified third-party professional negotiator facilitates communication between parties to a dispute to promote settlement and reach a mutually satisfactory solution, in this case regarding a claim for Obstruction of Scenic Views and/or Sunlight.
M. Obstruction shall mean any substantial and unreasonable blocking or diminishment of Scenic Views and/or Sunlight that is attributable to the growth, improper maintenance and/or the location of a Tree, as determined by the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal, consistent with the findings of fact required by this Chapter.
N. Parkway shall mean that area of the street between the back of curb and the sidewalk that is typically planted or landscaped.
O. Person shall mean any individual(s), corporation, partnership, firm, or other legal entity (including the City of Del Mar), owning real property or residing in real property within the Del Mar City limits.
P. Primary Living Area (PLA) shall mean that (single) portion of a primary residence (typically the living room, dining room or great room) determined by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, to be the main gathering and entertainment room of the primary residence.
1. The determination of a PLA is to be made on a case-by-case basis and shall be consistent with any prior determinations made by the City. Each primary residence shall be limited to the designation of only one (1) PLA (a primary residence does not include “Accessory Dwelling Units”, as that term is defined by Chapter 30.91 of this Municipal Code).
2. Under rare and extraordinary circumstances, the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, may determine that another area of a primary residence (other than the living room, dining room or great room) is the PLA.
3. Under no circumstances shall a bathroom, laundry room, storage room, stairwell, hallway, outdoor deck, patio, balcony, or any other area outside of the enclosing walls of a primary residence, be designated as a PLA. Additionally, a PLA may not be from any space within an Accessory Dwelling Unit (as that term is defined by Chapter 30.91 of this Municipal Code).
Q. Protected Tree shall mean any of the following:
1. A Tree of the species Hesperocyparis macrocarpa (Monterey Cypress);
2. A Tree of the species Pinus torreyana (Torrey Pine); 23 July 7, 2025 Item 17
3. A Tree of any species and located on property within the Central Commercial or Open Space Overlay zones of the City, within a public right-of-way, or on public- or City-owned property; or
4. Any Tree planted as a result of required mitigation for the removal of another Protected Tree.
R. Restorative Action shall mean any specific action(s) and conditions required by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, to be implemented to resolve a dispute relating to the Obstruction of the Applicant’s pre-existing Scenic Views and/or Sunlight.
S. Scenic View shall mean a view of the ocean, lagoons, canyons, the community and its landscapes and urban forest character, or other scenic backcountry (eastern) vistas from the PLA of a primary residence. When observed through more than one window or multiple locations within the PLA, the full extent of the Scenic View shall be a culmination of all vantage points from within the PLA. A Scenic View shall not have been created by natural disaster/causes such as storms, fire, disease or pest infestation, or illegal activity.
T. Severe Pruning shall mean the cutting of branches and/or the trunk of a Tree in a manner which substantially reduces the overall size of the Tree or destroys the existing symmetrical appearance, natural shape and/or health of the Tree, and which results in the removal of main lateral branches leaving the trunk and branches of the Tree in a stub appearance. "Topping" and "Heading Back" as defined herein are considered to be Severe Pruning. As stated herein, Severe Pruning should be avoided due to the damage that such practices can cause to a Tree's form and health.
U. Site of the Subject Tree shall mean the property on which a Subject Tree is located, which shall be located within three hundred (300) feet of the Applicant's property boundary.
V. Solar Energy System shall have the same meaning as set forth in Section 801.5(a) of the California Civil Code, as that Section may be amended, renumbered, or redesignated from time to time. For purposes of this Chapter, the location of a Solar Energy System collector is required to comply with the local building and setback regulations.
W. Subject Tree shall mean a Tree for which an Application has been submitted regarding the alleged Obstruction of Scenic Views and/or Sunlight.
X. Sunlight shall mean the availability of direct and/or indirect sunlight to the PLA or to the existing Solar Energy System of an Applicant’s primary residence.
Y. Thinning shall mean the selective removal of entire branches from a Tree so as to improve visibility through the Tree and/or improve the Tree's structural condition.
Z. Topping shall mean eliminating the upper portion of the trunk or main leader of a Tree. Topping is not recommended in almost all cases.
AA. Tree shall mean any perennial plant growing on public or private property with a self-supporting woody main stem or trunk. For purposes of this Chapter, “Tree” shall also include vegetation such as shrubs, Hedges, and bushes. References to "Tree" herein shall include both the singular and the plural form.
24 July 7, 2025 Item 17
BB. Tree Owner shall mean the Person who holds title of the real property for the Site of the Subject Tree, or the Person responsible for maintenance of the Subject Tree in accordance with Section
23.51.030 of this Chapter.
CC. Tree Removal shall mean the elimination of any Tree from its present location.
DD. Trimming shall mean the selective removal of portions of branches from a Tree to modify the Tree shape or profile or otherwise alter the Tree's appearance.
23.51.030 Private Property Owner Maintenance of Adjacent Trees Located in Public Right-of-Way.
The maintenance of any Tree located within the public right-of-way, between the improved street edge and the property boundary of a private lot, shall be the responsibility of the adjacent private property owner, and not the City. As such, the adjacent private property owner shall be considered the “Tree Owner” for purposes of this Chapter.
23.51.040 Process for Alleging Obstruction of Scenic Views and/or Sunlight.
A. Application Submission to City.
1. Any Person alleging Obstruction of Scenic Views and/or Sunlight may submit an Application to the City Department of Planning and Community Development, which shall contain the following information and may be subject to review and approval by the Director:
a. Uniform Development Application on a form provided by the City; b. Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight Supplemental Questionnaire on a form provided by the City; c. Floor plan of the Applicant’s PLA depicting the direction of the Scenic Views and/or source of Sunlight (e.g., windows, doors, or other transparent surfaces); d. Photographic evidence taken from the Applicant’s PLA depicting both of the following:
(1) Pre-existing Scenic Views and/or Sunlight – Photograph must have been taken at some point in time during the timeframe set forth in Section 23.51.010(B)(2) of this Chapter to the present; and
(2) Alleged Obstruction of Scenic Views and/or Sunlight – Photograph must have been taken on or around the time of Application submittal;
e. Shade study demonstrating the amount and duration of the alleged Obstruction of Sunlight from a PLA or Solar Energy System (for Applications alleging Obstruction of Sunlight only); and
25 July 7, 2025 Item 17
f. Tree survey of the Subject Tree(s) signed and/or stamped by a Certified Arborist and providing the following information, which may be subject to review and approval by the City’s Arborist:
(1) Species, common name and variety of the Subject Tree(s); (2) Physical measurements of the Subject Tree(s) (e.g., height and trunk circumference at two (2) feet above the natural grade);
(3) Approximate age of the Subject Tree(s);
(4) Overall health and structural condition of the Subject Tree(s); (5) Life expectancy and suitability for preservation of the Subject Tree(s); (6) Desired Restorative Action, anticipated impact of such Restorative Action on the Subject Tree(s), and recommended maintenance activities(if any) for the long-term preservation of Applicant’s Scenic Views and/or Sunlight; and
(7) Other recommendations for management of the Subject Tree(s) and/or pertinent information related to the Subject Tree(s).
If the Tree Owner does not grant Applicant’s Certified Arborist access to the Site of the Subject Tree to conduct the tree survey required by this Subsection, then a tree survey shall be prepared containing as much of the above information as possible. Applicant’s Certified Arborist may use other sources to obtain this information, such as photographs taken from other properties, satellite photographs from commercially-available sources, and public record permit information for work performed on the Tree Owner's property.
2. Together with the submission of an Application, the Applicant shall remit an Application fee to the City in an amount established by Ordinance or Resolution of the City Council.
3. Upon review of the Application for completeness, the Director may request additional information, if necessary, within thirty (30) days following Application submittal.
4. The Application will not be deemed complete for further processing by the City until all materials required by this Section and any additional information requested by the Director have been submitted in a format deemed acceptable by the Director.
5. By submitting an Application to the City, Applicant agrees to allow City staff and/or the Tree Owner to personally enter upon Applicant’s property (under Applicant’s supervision) to view and photograph the alleged Obstruction of Scenic Views and/or Sunlight from the Applicant’s PLA and/or Solar Energy System.
6. Group Applications are not permitted. A single Application must be submitted for each Person alleging Obstruction of Scenic Views and/or Sunlight. Each Application will be considered on an individual basis at a public hearing before the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal. 26 July 7, 2025 Item 17
B. Mediation Efforts.
1. Together with the information required under Subsection (A) of this Section, Applicant shall also submit documentation to the City demonstrating the following:
a. Applicant contacted the Tree Owner and made reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute alleging Obstruction of Scenic Views and/or Sunlight, including, at a minimum, offering to engage in Mediation.
b. Proof of Applicant’s efforts to meet and confer with the Tree Owner shall include:
(1) Documented attempts offering to participate in Mediation (via certified mail, e-mail exchanges, text messages, etc.); and
(2) An explanation of whether such offers to participate in Mediation were declined in writing by the Tree Owner, or if Mediation was unsuccessful between the parties.
2. The Tree Owner’s failure to respond to Applicant’s offer for Mediation within thirty (30) days following receipt of the offer shall be deemed a refusal by the Tree Owner to participate in Mediation.
3. If the Tree Owner agrees to Mediation, the Mediation shall be completed within one hundred and eighty (180) days following Tree Owner’s acceptance of Applicant’s offer for Mediation, unless an extension is granted by the Director.
C. Notice to Tree Owner. Within thirty (30) days following receipt of a complete Application, City staff shall provide notice to the Tree Owner including the following information:
1. Copy of the Application and any other materials submitted by the Applicant;
2. Copy of this Chapter 23.51;
3. Statement notifying the Tree Owner that there is still time and an opportunity for the parties to resolve the dispute prior to the public hearing;
4. Statement encouraging the Tree Owner to participate in Mediation and informational materials associated with the Mediation process, such as a referral to the National Conflict Resolution Center; and
5. Notice that a written response to the Application may be submitted in advance of the public hearing for review by the Planning Commission, the deadline for any such response, and the anticipated date and time of the public hearing.
D. Public Hearing and Decision.
27 July 7, 2025 Item 17
1. The Application shall be presented at a noticed public hearing conducted by the City of Del Mar Planning Commission. The public hearing procedures shall be consistent with those contained in Section 7.2 of the Planning Commission’s adopted Policy Manual.
2. The Applicant and the Tree Owner shall each be allowed one (1) request for a postponement of the public hearing, provided that the written request is received by the Director at least fourteen (14) days prior to the scheduled hearing date.
3. At least ten (10) days prior to the scheduled public hearing date, notice shall be published and mailed to all real property owners of record located within three hundred (300) feet of the Applicant's property boundary and the Site of the Subject Tree.
4. During the public hearing, the Applicant and the Tree Owner shall each be allowed an opportunity to present testimony and evidence relating to the Application and the Subject Tree(s). The public shall also be given an opportunity to provide comment on the Application and the Subject Tree(s).
5. The Planning Commission shall issue a decision regarding the Application to determine whether an Obstruction of Scenic Views and/or Sunlight has occurred based on the criteria set forth in Section 23.51.060 of this Chapter.
a. The Planning Commission’s decision shall be documented in the form of a Resolution. b. If the Planning Commission finds in favor of the Applicant, the Planning Commission’s Resolution shall also include the requirement to perform Restorative Action work in accordance with Section 23.51.080 of this Chapter. If desired, the Planning Commission may choose to appoint a subcommittee of the Planning Commission to work with City staff on the creation of a draft Restorative Action plan for consideration and action by the Planning Commission at a future meeting.
c. The Planning Commission's decision on the Application shall become final on the eleventh (11th) business day following the adoption of the Planning Commission’s Resolution, unless appealed to the City Council in accordance with Section 23.51.100 of this Chapter. 28 July 7, 2025 Item 17
23.51.050 Criteria for Determining Unreasonable Obstruction of Scenic Views.
A. In considering whether an unreasonable Obstruction of Scenic Views has occurred pursuant to this Chapter, the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, shall determine whether the Subject Tree(s) obstructs the Applicant’s Scenic Views (observed from the Applicant’s PLA) by more than the permissible percentages listed for the type of Scenic Views identified in Table 1 of this Section.
B. The Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, shall be responsible for determining the type(s) of Scenic View and appropriate view angle upon which to base its review from those listed in Table 1 of this Section. In making this determination, the recommendation of staff may be considered.
C. Scenic Views of a specific type (e.g., White Water, Blue Water, etc.) could possibly be observed from multiple vantage points and directions inside the Applicant’s PLA, resulting in several separated views of a similar type. When this occurs, the Planning Commission, or the City Council on appeal, shall consider the Scenic View to be the culmination of all (separated) views that can be observed within a 180-degree corridor from the PLA, and shall apply the allowable percentages of Obstruction accordingly.
Table 1
ALLOWABLE SCENIC VIEW OBSTRUCTION – 180 DEGREE CORRIDOR Type of Scenic View Slot (< 45°) Middle (45° – 90°) Panorama (> 90°) White Water 0 – 5 % 0 – 5 % 0 – 10 %
Blue Water 0 – 10 % 0 – 10 % 0 – 15 %
Horizon/Back Country 0 – 15 % 0 – 20 % 0 – 20 %
23.51.060 Findingsfor Determining Unreasonable Obstruction of Scenic Views and/or Sunlight.
A. Obstruction of Scenic Views(from the Applicant’s PLA). To render a decision in favor of the Applicant regarding unreasonable Obstruction of Scenic Views, the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, shall make all of the following findings of fact:
1. The Subject Tree(s) is/are located on the Tree Owner’s property, which is located within three hundred (300) feet of the Applicant’s property (also referred to herein as the “Site of the Subject Tree”);
29 July 7, 2025 Item 17
2. The Applicant’s Scenic View is consistent with the definition of “Scenic View” as provided in Section 23.51.020 of this Chapter;
3. The Applicant’s stated PLA is consistent with the definition of “Primary Living Area (PLA)” as provided in Section 23.51.020 of this Chapter;
4. The Applicant has contacted the Tree Owner and made reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute alleging Obstruction of Scenic Views, as required by Section 23.51.040(B) of this Chapter;
5. Consistent with Section 23.51.040(A) of this Chapter, the Applicant has provided photographic evidence of prior Scenic Views taken from the Applicant’s PLA on or after the later of the following: (i) the date Applicant acquired Applicant’s property; or (ii) August 1, 2002;
6. Based on a review of the photographic evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Applicant’s Scenic View has been reduced by more than the maximum allowed percentage of Obstruction listed in Table 1 under Section 23.51.050 of this Chapter; and
7. Restoration of the Applicant’s Scenic Views will not create an infringement on the Tree Owner’s privacy that cannot be reasonably mitigated.
B. Obstruction of Sunlight (to the Applicant’s Solar Energy System). To render a decision in favor of the Applicant regarding unreasonable Obstruction of Sunlight to Applicant’s existing Solar Energy System, the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal,shall make the following findings of fact:
1. The Subject Tree(s) is/are located on the Tree Owner’s property, which is located within three hundred (300) feet of the Applicant’s property (also referred to herein as the “Site of the Subject Tree”);
2. The Applicant’s Sunlight is consistent with the definition of “Sunlight” as provided in Section
23.51.020 of this Chapter;
3. The Applicant’s Solar Energy System is consistent with the definition of “Solar Energy System” as provided in Section 23.51.020 of this Chapter;
4. The Applicant has contacted the Tree Owner and made reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute alleging Obstruction of Sunlight, as required by Section 23.51.040(B) of this Chapter;
5. Consistent with Section 23.51.040(A) of this Chapter, the Applicant has provided photographic evidence of prior Sunlight to the Solar Energy System taken on or after the later of the following:
(i) date Applicant acquired Applicant’s property; or (ii) August 1, 2002;
6. The Applicant has provided an exhibit demonstrating the amount and duration of the Obstruction of Sunlight in a graphic format, such as a shadow study, as required by Section
23.51.040(A) of this Chapter;
7. Based on a review of the photographic evidence and exhibit submitted by the Applicant, the Subject Tree(s) cast(s) a shadow on the Applicant’s Solar Energy System that is greater than ten 30 July 7, 2025 Item 17
percent (10%) of the Solar Energy System absorption area at any time between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., Pacific Standard Time (PST); and
8. Restoration of Sunlight to the Applicant’s Solar Energy System will not create an infringement on the Tree Owner’s privacy that cannot be reasonably mitigated.
C. Obstruction of Sunlight (to the Applicant’s PLA). To render a decision in favor of the Applicant regarding unreasonable Obstruction of Sunlight to Applicant’s PLA, the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, shall make the following findings of fact:
1. The Subject Tree(s) is/are located on the Tree Owner’s property, which is located within three hundred (300) feet of the Applicant’s property (also referred to herein as the “Site of the Subject Tree”);
2. The Applicant’s Sunlight is consistent with the definition of “Sunlight” as provided in Section
23.51.020 of this Chapter;
3. The Applicant’s stated PLA is consistent with the definition of “Primary Living Area (PLA”) as provided in Section 23.51.020 of this Chapter;
4. The Applicant has contacted the Tree Owner and made reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute alleging Obstruction of Sunlight, as required by Section 23.51.040(B) of this Chapter;
5. Consistent with Section 23.51.040(A) of this Chapter, the Applicant has provided photographic documentation of prior Sunlight from the PLA taken on or after the later of the following: (i) the date Applicant acquired Applicant’s property; or (ii) August 1, 2002;
6. The Applicant has provided an exhibit demonstrating the amount and duration of the Obstruction of Sunlight in a graphic format, such as a shadow study, as required by Section 23.51.040(A) of this Chapter;
7. Based on a review of the photographic evidence and exhibit submitted by the Applicant, the Subject Tree(s) cast(s) shadows greater than fifty percent (50%) of the total window glazing in the Applicant’s PLA at any time between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., Pacific Standard Time (PST); and
8. Restoration of Sunlight to the Applicant’s PLA will not create an infringement on the Tree Owner’s privacy that cannot be reasonably mitigated.
23.51.070 Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action.
After it has been determined through the hearing process that an unreasonable Obstruction has occurred, then the following unweighted factors may be considered by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, in determining the appropriate Restorative Action:
31 July 7, 2025 Item 17
A. Any hazards posed by the Subject Tree(s) to any Persons or structures on the Applicant’s property, including, but not limited to, fire danger, as determined by a City Fire Official, and the danger of falling limbs or Trees, as determined by a Certified Arborist; B. The variety of the Subject Tree(s), its/their projected rate of growth and maintenance requirements; C. The aesthetic quality of the Subject Tree(s), including but not limited to, species characteristics, size, growth, form and vigor;
D. The location of the Subject Tree(s) with respect to overall appearance, design and/or use of the Site of the Subject Tree(s);
E. Soil stability provided by the Subject Tree(s) considering soil structure, degree of slope and extent of the Subject Tree's root system per a report from a soils engineer licensed by the State of California; F. Privacy (visual and auditory) and wind screening provided by the Subject Tree(s) to the Tree Owner and neighbors of the Tree Owner;
G. Energy conservation and/or climate control provided by the Subject Tree(s); H. Wildlife habitat provided by the Subject Tree(s);
I. Whether the Subject Tree(s) is/are considered a "Protected Tree", as defined herein and in Chapter
23.50 (Trees) of this Municipal Code;
J. The value of the Subject Tree(s) to the community/neighborhood; K. Whether the Subject Tree(s) is/are located on or in the public right-of-way or City-owned property; and
L. Whether the Subject Tree(s) has/have been deemed “discouraged” or undesirable by the City, as provided in the City’s Public Tree Policy Manual.
23.51.080 Determination of Restorative Action Work to be Performed.
A. Consideration of Recommendations. In determining the type(s) of Restorative Action work to be performed under this Chapter, the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, shall first consider any recommendation(s) made by City staff, which could include recommendation(s) from a Certified Arborist retained by the Applicant, Tree Owner and/or City.
B. Types of Restorative Action. Restorative Action work may include, but is not limited to, any of the following (in order of preference):
1. Crown Cleaning. Removing dead, dying, diseased and broken branches from the crown of the Subject Tree(s).
32 July 7, 2025 Item 17
2. Lacing/Thinning. Lacing is the preferred pruning technique, which removes excess foliage within the canopy, improves general views through the Subject Tree(s), and can improve the structure of the Subject Tree(s).
3. Crown Raising. Selectively removing the lower limbs from the crown of the Subject Tree(s).
4. Crown Reduction/Shaping. Crown Reduction/Shaping of the Subject Tree(s) is preferable to Topping or Tree Removal, if it is determined that the impact of Crown Reduction/Shaping would not destroy the visual proportions of the Subject Tree(s), adversely affect the Subject Tree's growth pattern or health, or otherwise constitute a detriment to the Subject Tree(s).
5. Heading Back. Heading Back should only be permitted if all of the following apply:
a. The Subject Tree(s) is/are specifically planted and maintained as a Hedge, espalier, bonsai, or in pollard form;
b. Restorative Actions 1 through 4 of this Section will not accomplish the intended Restorative Action; and
c. Subsequent growth characteristics will not create a future Obstruction of greater proportions.
6. Tree Removal. Tree Removal of the Subject Tree(s) may be considered when the abovementioned Restorative Actions are judged to be ineffective. Where Tree Removal is required, replacement by appropriate species may be considered by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, but is not required.
7. Stand Thinning. The removal of a portion of the total number of Trees from a grove of Trees on the Site of the Subject Tree, including the removal of the Subject Tree(s), without any replacement plantings.
In cases where Trimming or any other type(s) of Restorative Action work may affect the health of a Tree that is intended to be preserved, such Restorative Action work shall be carried out in accordance with the standards established by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) for use in the State of California. Severe Pruning should be avoided due to the damage that such practices can cause to a Tree's form and health.
C. Written Conditions. Restorative Action imposed by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, may also include written conditions (such as ongoing maintenance), and directions as to the appropriate timing of such conditions.
D. 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, bi-annually, 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.
33 July 7, 2025 Item 17
E. Consistency with Chapter. The performance of any Restorative Action work required under this Chapter shall be performed consistent with all other provisions of this Chapter.
F. Timeline for Compliance. Any Restorative Action work required under this Chapter shall be performed no later than the timelines set forth in Section 23.51.090 of this Chapter, unless an exception applies, as follows:
1. An exception applies if it is determined by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, that it would be less harmful to the Subject Tree(s) for the Restorative Action work to occur at a specific time of the year.
2. If it is determined that an exception applies, then the Restorative Action work shall be performed no later than ninety (90) days following the specific date set forth by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal.
23.51.090 Allocation of Costs and Procedures for the Payment of Restorative Action Work.
A. Responsibility for Application Fees and Related Costs. The Applicant shall be responsible for the Application fee(s) owed to the City, and any other fees and costs relating to providing the required Application materials to the City, including other information requested by the City to review and process the Application, as well as the costs associated with the public noticing requirement under Section 23.51.040(D) of this Chapter.
B. Responsibility for Costs of Initial Restorative Action Work. When Restorative Action is required by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, the costs for the initial Restorative Action work required to be performed under this Chapter (excluding any ongoing maintenance) shall be as follows:
1. The Applicant and the Tree Owner shall each pay fifty percent (50%) of all costs associated with the initial Restorative Action work, which includes the full cost of the Tree Survey required by DMMC Section 23.51.040(g), unless an exception applies, as set forth below.
2. The Tree Owner shall pay one hundred percent (100%) of all costs associated with the initial Restorative Action work, which includes the full cost of the Tree Survey required by DMMC Section 23.51.040(g), if the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, makes a determination that:
a. The Tree Owner has refused to participate in good faith attempts to resolve the dispute as required by Section 23.51.040(B) of this Chapter; and/or b. The Subject Tree constitutes a hazard to the safety of the Applicant and/or the Applicant’s property, and is being maintained by the Tree Owner in disregard for the safety of others and/or property.
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 34 July 7, 2025 Item 17
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.
D. Procedures for Payment, Scheduling and Completion of Initial Restorative Action Work.
1. Applicant Partially Responsible for Costs of Initial Restorative Action Work. When the Applicant is partially responsible for the cost of the initial Restorative Action work as set forth in Subsection (B)(1) of this Section, then the following procedures shall be enacted:
a. For any initial Restorative Action work, the Tree Owner shall submit to the City two (2) itemized written cost estimates for performing the initial Restorative Action work. The estimates shall be prepared by licensed and insured landscape or Tree service contractors, under the supervision of a Certified Arborist, and acceptable to the City. The estimates shall be submitted to the City within thirty (30) days following the adoption of the Resolution approving the Restorative Action plan. The estimates shall be subject to review for acceptance by the Director. The Director reserves the right to consult with a Certified Arborist retained by the City if both of the estimates appear to be substantially above the professional average for such services, and in that case, the Tree Owner shall be responsible for reimbursing the City for the cost of consultation with the City Arborist and may be required to submit additional estimates to the City.
b. Estimates provided by the Tree Owner shall only include, and the Applicant shall only be responsible for, payment of costs to perform the initial Restorative Action work (excluding any ongoing maintenance) as required by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal. Such costs may include debris removal/recycling fees, and the purchase and installation of mitigation Trees (if required by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal). Applicant shall not be responsible for any other costs associated with the Restorative Action work required to be performed, including, but not limited to, tarping, removal and/or replacement of fencing, walls or other improvements to bring equipment onto the Site of the Subject Tree, temporary relocation and re-installation or removal and replacement of appurtenances, structures, fixtures and other improvements on the Site of the Subject Tree, and/or any other costs not directly related to the costs of performing the Restorative Action work, as required by the Restorative Action plan approved by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal.
c. Within fifteen (15) days following the Director’s acceptance of the cost estimates submitted by the Tree Owner, the Applicant shall deposit with the City an amount equal to the cost percentage required to be paid by the Applicant pursuant to Subsection (B) of this Section, using the lower amount of the two cost estimates. Failure of the Applicant to timely make the required deposit within these fifteen (15) days will render the City’s Resolution requiring the Restorative Action work to become null and void.
d. Once the Applicant’s deposit is received by the City, the Tree Owner shall, at the Tree Owner’s sole discretion, choose which one of the two companies that submitted estimates accepted by the Director will perform the initial Restorative Action work, and shall notify the City of its decision. Within thirty (30) days following the City’s receipt of the Applicant's deposit (or such other period of time as the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, may determine to be reasonable and appropriate), the Tree Owner shall schedule the initial 35 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Restorative Action work to be completed. If the Tree Owner does not have the initial Restorative Action work completed within thirty (30) days or within the time-period indicated by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, then the City may pursue any and all available remedies and enforcement mechanisms against the Tree Owner, in accordance with Section 23.51.110 of this Chapter.
e. The Tree Owner shall notify the City in advance of the date and time that the initial Restorative Action work is scheduled to take place. City staff, or a qualified third party designated by the City, shall inspect the initial Restorative Action work, upon completion, to determine whether the work complies with and satisfies the requirements and conditions contained in the Restorative Action plan. The City’s inspection of the initial Restorative Action work shall be scheduled for a time when the contractors performing the initial Restorative Action work are still present at the Site of the Subject Tree and available to perform additional work, if deemed required by the City. The final determination of compliance with and satisfaction of the Restorative Action plan is made by the Director. f. Following City approval of the initial Restorative Action work, the Tree Owner shall submit a copy of an invoice for the work performed to the City. Upon submittal of the invoice, the City shall transmit the funds held in the City’s deposit account to the Tree Owner.
2. Tree Owner Fully Responsible for Costs of Initial Restorative Action Work. When the Tree Owner is fully responsible for the cost of the initial Restorative Action as set forth in Subsection (B)(2) of this Section, then the following procedures shall be enacted:
a. The initial Restorative Action work shall be completed within thirty (30) days following adoption of the Resolution approving the Restorative Action plan (or such other period of time as the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, may determine to be reasonable and appropriate). If the Tree Owner does not have the initial Restorative Action work completed within the time-period indicated by the Planning Commission or within thirty (30) days, then the City may pursue any and all available remedies and enforcement mechanisms against the Tree Owner, in accordance with Section 23.51.110 of this Chapter. b. The Tree Owner shall notify the City in advance of the date and time that the initial Restorative Action work is scheduled to take place. City staff, or a qualified third party designated by the City, shall inspect the initial Restorative Action work, upon completion, to determine whether the work complies with and satisfies the requirements and conditions contained in the Restorative Action plan. The City’s inspection of the initial Restorative Action work shall be scheduled for a time when the contractors performing the initial Restorative Action work are still present at the Site of the Subject Tree and available to perform additional work, if deemed required by the City. The final determination of compliance with and satisfaction of the Restorative Action plan is made by the Director.
E. Procedures for Scheduling and Completion of Ongoing Restorative Action Work.
1. Any ongoing maintenance required as part of the Restorative Action plan shall be completed according to the time schedule (e.g., annually, bi-annually, etc.) established by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal. If the Tree Owner does not timely complete the ongoing 36 July 7, 2025 Item 17
maintenance work, then the City may pursue any and all available remedies and enforcement mechanisms against the Tree Owner, in accordance with Section 23.51.110 of this Chapter.
2. The Tree Owner shall notify the City in advance of the date and time that the ongoing maintenance work is scheduled to take place. City staff, or a qualified third party designated by the City, shall inspect the ongoing maintenance work upon its completion to determine whether the work complies with and satisfies the requirements and conditions contained in the Restorative Action plan. The City’s inspection of the ongoing maintenance work shall be scheduled for a time when the contractors performing the work are still present at the Site of the Subject Tree and available to perform additional work, if deemed required by the City. The final determination of compliance with and satisfaction of the Restorative Action plan is made by the Director.
23.51.100 Appeal.
A. The Planning Commission's decision under this Chapter shall become final on the eleventh (11th) business day following the adoption of the Planning Commission’s Resolution documenting the decision, unless the decision is appealed pursuant to this Section.
B. The Planning Commission’s decision may be appealed to the City Council consistent with the appeal provisions of this Municipal Code.
C. The provisions of Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to judicial review of any final decision made by the City of Del Mar pursuant to this Chapter.
23.51.110 Enforcement.
Failure to comply with any provision under this Chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor or infraction, punishable in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1.08 of this Municipal Code, and is further declared to be a public nuisance that may be enjoined or abated as provided by law.
23.51.120 Liability.
A. The City shall not be liable for any claims, demands, causes of actions, damages, injuries, litigation, costs, and/or liability arising out of or related to any agreement, decision, determination, or order concerning claims relating to Scenic Views and/or Sunlight that may result from Mediation or litigation.
B. Under no circumstances shall the City have any responsibility or liability to enforce or seek any legal redress (civil or criminal) for any agreement, decision, determination, or order that any other Person or entity makes concerning claims relating to Scenic Views and/or Sunlight.
23.51.130 Indemnification.
By submitting the Application to the City, Applicant acknowledges and agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Del Mar and its officers, boards, commissions, agents, and employees (collectively, “City Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of actions, 37 July 7, 2025 Item 17
damages, injuries, litigation, costs, and/or liability (collectively, “Claims”) arising out of or related to any Claims brought against the City Indemnified Parties to attack, set aside, void, or annul any determination granted by the City relating to the Application, including, but not limited to, the adoption of a Resolution and issuance of a plan for Restorative Action work, including ongoing maintenance, required to be performed by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, and any and all costs incurred in enforcing the same, except for those costs of enforcement that the City may recover from the Tree Owner.
The City may, at its sole and absolute discretion, choose to participate in the defense of such Claims undertaken by the Applicant, or retain separate counsel whose attorneys’ fees and costs shall be paid by the Applicant. Such participation by the City in the defense of such Claims or the retention of separate counsel by the City shall not relieve the Applicant of their obligations under this Section.
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.
B. Nothing in the Chapter shall deny private parties the right to seek remedial action for any Imminent Danger caused by any Tree(s).
23.51.150 Process for Alleging Obstruction of Scenic Views and/or Sunlight by City Trees.
The below provisions shall apply when any Person alleges Obstruction of Scenic Views and/or Sunlight caused by City Trees. The process for determining whether an unreasonable Obstruction of Scenic Views and/or Sunlight has occurred as a result of City Trees is set forth below.
A. Application Submittal.
1. Any Person who believes that the growth, improper maintenance and/or installation of a City Tree has caused an unreasonable Obstruction of Scenic Views and/or Sunlight may submit an Application to the City in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.51.040(A) of this Chapter.
2. Together with the submission of an Application, the Applicant shall remit an Application fee to the City in an amount established by Ordinance or Resolution of the City Council.
3. Upon review of the Application for completeness, the Director may request additional information, if necessary, within thirty (30) days following Application submittal.
4. The Application will not be deemed complete for further processing by the City until all materials required by this Section and any additional information requested by the Director have been submitted in a format deemed acceptable by the Director.
B. City’s Review of the Alleged Obstruction. Upon receipt of a complete Application, the Director, in consultation with the City’s Public Works Director and/or a City Arborist, shall:
1. Review and evaluate the Application to determine whether the required findings of fact can be made pursuant to Section 23.51.060 of this Chapter;
38 July 7, 2025 Item 17
2. Perform a site visit to the Applicant’s PLA; and
3. Consider the public interest in maintaining the public environment created by the existing City Tree(s) and its/their contribution to the community character.
C. City’s Decision and Public Notice.
1. The Director shall approve or deny the Application by written decision within thirty (30) days following the Application has been deemed complete.
2. The Director’s written decision shall specify findings of fact for Application approval or denial as provided in Section 23.51.060 of this Chapter.
3. Approval of an Application under this Section shall include appropriate Restorative Action based on a recommendation by City staff working in consultation with a City Arborist. The Restorative Action plan shall consider the criteria set forth in Section 23.51.070 of this Chapter, shall be consistent with Section 23.51.080 of this Chapter, and shall involve the least amount of impact necessary to the overall aesthetic of the City Tree(s).
4. If the Restorative Action plan requires Tree Removal of a Protected City Tree, the City shall provide public notice of the Director’s decision, as follows:
a. Notice shall be posted on the City’s website and mailed to all owners of real property located within three hundred (300) feet of the location of the City Tree(s). b. Notice shall include a number assigned to the Application, a description of the City Tree(s) causing an Obstruction of Applicant’s Scenic Views and/or Sunlight, and information on the process for appealing the Director’s decision.
5. The Director’s decision shall become final on the eleventh (11th) business day following the date of the posted/mailed public notice, unless appealed.
D. Appeal of Director’s Decision. For purposes of this Section only, the Director’s decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of this Municipal Code. The Planning Commission’s decision shall become final on the eleventh (11th) business day following the adoption of the Planning Commission’s Resolution, unless appealed to the City Council in accordance with Section 23.51.100 of this Chapter.
E. Procedures for Restorative Action Work and Allocation of Costs.
1. If any Restorative Action work is required to be performed in accordance with this Section, the City and the Applicant shall each be responsible for paying fifty percent (50%) of the cost to perform the Restorative Action work.
2. Within thirty (30) days following the date the Director’s written decision approving the Application, City staff shall provide the written decision to the City’s contracted tree maintenance company to obtain a cost estimate for the performance of the Restorative Action work. 39 July 7, 2025 Item 17
3. Upon receipt of the cost estimate for the performance of the Restorative Action work, City staff shall provide the Applicant with an invoice for fifty percent (50%) of the total cost estimate.
4. Within fifteen (15) days following receipt of the invoice from the City, the Applicant shall remit the full invoiced amount to the City as a deposit for the performance of the Restorative Action work. Failure of the Applicant to timely make the required deposit within these fifteen (15) days will render the Director’s decision requiring the Restorative Action work to become null and void.
5. Upon completion of the Restorative Action work, the deposited funds shall be used towards payment of the Applicant’s fifty percent (50%) share of the total cost to perform the Restorative Action work.
a. If the final cost of the Restorative Action work is less than the initial estimate, any unused amount of the deposit shall be returned to the Applicant. b. If the final cost of the Restorative Action work exceeds the initial estimate, the City shall provide the Applicant with an invoice for the remaining amount owed by the Applicant.
Within fifteen (15) days following receipt of the invoice, the Applicant shall remit to the City the remaining amount of the Applicant’s share owed to the City. 40 July 7, 2025 Item 17
TSVS Code/Process Update
“Guiding Principles”
(Accepted by City Council on 10/7/2024)
1. Ensure administration of the new regulations will not overburden City resources (including staff/legal resources);
2. Establish objective application criteria and processing framework;
3. Rely upon precise, objective, and documentable decision findings to reduce appeals and legal challenges to the greatest extent possible;
4. Incorporate a clear and expedited process for applications involving “City” and “Protected” trees;
5. Ensure an equitable cost allocation process to initiate the view/sunlight restoration process, perform view restoration work, and maintain restored scenic views;
6. Encourage and create a pathway for neighbors to seek an alternative route to successful dispute resolution outside of the City TSVS process;
7. Balance and acknowledge the needs of private view/sunlight protection with all benefits provided by tree and vegetation growth, the goals of the Climate Action Plan, the goals and provisions of the Design Review process and the City’s tree policies and regulations;
8. Address the applicability of “accidental” views (downed trees, fire impacts, etc.) and “good neighbor” view creation in the context of view rights established by the regulations;
9. Provide an objective balance between the privacy provided by hedges and a neighbor’s established scenic views and/or sunlight through consideration of height regulations.
ATTACHMENT B
41 July 7, 2025 Item 17
City
Binding Decision
Pathway to
Arbitration
(N
o decision by Jurisdiction)
Views Protected by
Date, O
wnership,
B
oth, or Neither
Processing or Mediation C
ost
Responsibility (Applicant / Tree
Pays Restoration C
ost (Applicant /
Tree O
wner / B
oth)
C
osts Determined During Mediation
or Arbitration
#
of Factors to be C
onsidered
(Findings)
Ord. Addresses City
Trees/Veg.
City
Pro
vides D
ocumentation
Services (Photos by
Staff)
Living Fence (Hedge) Ht. Limits Apply
Arborist Rpt required w/ Submittal
Application Filing Fee
Alameda County X D A A 4 X X
Belvedere X O B 8 X X
Berkley X O A A* 15
Beverly Hills X N A A* 12 X X $23,123
Contra Costa Co. X O B 13
Corte Madera X D A A 9 X X
Culver City X N X 9 X X
Del Mar X B A A 17 $3,280 (x2)
El Cerrito X N X
Hillsborough X O A A X
Laguna Beach X N A A* 8 X X X $1,000 - $2K
Los Altos Hills X B B 4 X
Malibu X X B B* B* 5 X $2,089
Martinez X B B X 17 X X
Oakland X O B 17 X X
Orinda X O B X 7
Piedmont X B B 12 X
Rancho Palos Verdes X D A A 6 X X $5,106
Rolling Hills Estates X B A A 5 X X
Rolling Hills X X D A A 7 $2,250
San Fancisco X N B B 19
Santa Barbara X N A A 21 X X
Sausalito X N A A 10 X $3,275
Tiburon X O B X 9 X
Torrance X N X 4
Ventura X N X 20 X
Westlake Village X O B X 4 X
Clyde Hill Wa. X O A B* 9 X $3,000 **
https://californiaviewlaw.com/resources
JU
RIS
DIC
TIO
N
S
ISSUES RESEARCHED
Jurisdictional
View
Ordinance
Comparison
Chart
* Tree owner pays for on-going mainenance
* *Plus City Attorney and Consult. Costs
ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT C
42 July 7, 2025 Item 17
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Matt Bator, AICP, Principal Planner
Karen Brindley, Planning and Community Development Director Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: December 2, 2024
SUBJECT: Identification of Issues for Updating the Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Regulations
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council receive an informational update and provide feedback and direction regarding proposed issue areas to be amended in the City’s Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight regulations.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 includes updating Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 23.51, also known as the Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight (TSVS) Ordinance, and the City’s Tree Policy Manual and associated code/regulations (DMMC Chapter 23.50) with the goal of protecting and enhancing the City’s urban forest tree canopy while managing the City’s wildfire risk.
On October 7, 2024, staff presented to the City Council nine “guiding principles” to inform and influence the updating of the TSVS. The City Council received public testimony, discussed the draft guiding principles, and provided additional direction to ensure that the preservation of “sunlight,” in addition to scenic views, is given equal weight in the guiding principles and revisions to the TSVS regulations. The guiding principles have been included as Attachment A.
DISCUSSION:
Since the City Council’s acceptance of the guiding principles, staff has evaluated the reoccurring issues that have arisen while processing TSVS applications since the original adoption of the TSVS Ordinance (No. 747) in July 2002. Additionally, staff has reviewed information and reports pertaining to view regulations in twenty-seven (27) other jurisdictions, identifying common implementation issues and how the respective regulations have been modified and improved over time.
Through this research staff has identified a series of amendments/revisions that implement the guiding principles and the direction they provide for improvement of Del Mar’s TSVS regulations, process, and procedures. Staff also met with the City Council’s 1 December 2, 2024 Item 10
ATTACHMENT D
43 July 7, 2025 Item 17
City Council Agenda Report
TSVS Update – Issue Identification
December 2, 2024
Planning Process Subcommittee (Mayor Druker and Deputy Mayor Gaasterland) as part of this issue identification process.
Of the five issue areas identified, staff is seeking early input and direction prior to proceeding with draft language for introduction of an ordinance to amend the TSVS regulations (DMMC Chapter 23.51). The five specific issues are related to: 1) the time period for which view restoration can be sought; 2) required findings for determining unreasonable scenic view and/or sunlight obstruction; 3) cost apportionment; 4) claims against City trees; and 5) unregulated hedge heights. Staff review and discussion of these issue areas is provided in Attachment B, and each discussion includes a specific policy question, associated background information, staff’s recommendation, and the guiding principles that apply. Following the five policy inquiries is a list of additional sections and components of the TSVS regulations identified for proposed revision.
Staff requests that the City Council review and provide feedback and direction as to whether staff should proceed with drafting amendments to DMMC Chapter 23.51 as indicated and recommended in Attachment B.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
There is no environmental impact on receiving the report. The proposed City Council action does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it will not have a potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and is not subject to CEQA.
NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
Updating the Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Ordinance is an identified Tier 2 Council priority for Fiscal Year 2024-25.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – TSVS Update Guiding Principles
Attachment B – Identification of TSVS Issues and Potential Revisions 2 December 2, 2024 Item 10 44 July 7, 2025 Item 17
TSVS Code/Process Update
“Guiding Principles”
(Accepted by City Council on 10/7/2024)
1. Ensure administration of the new regulations will not overburden City resources (including staff/legal resources);
2. Establish objective application criteria and processing framework;
3. Rely upon precise, objective, and documentable decision findings to reduce appeals and legal challenges to the greatest extent possible;
4. Incorporate a clear and expedited process for applications involving “City” and “Protected” trees;
5. Ensure an equitable cost allocation process to initiate the view/sunlight restoration process, perform view restoration work, and maintain restored scenic views;
6. Encourage and create a pathway for neighbors to seek an alternative route to successful dispute resolution outside of the City TSVS process;
7. Balance and acknowledge the needs of private view/sunlight protection with all benefits provided by tree and vegetation growth, the goals of the Climate Action Plan, the goals and provisions of the Design Review process and the City’s tree policies and regulations;
8. Address the applicability of “accidental” views (downed trees, fire impacts, etc.) and “good neighbor” view creation in the context of view rights established by the regulations;
9. Provide an objective balance between the privacy provided by hedges and a neighbor’s established scenic views and/or sunlight through consideration of height regulations.
ATTACHMENT A
3 December 2, 2024 Item 10 45 July 7, 2025 Item 17
TSVS Issue Identification for Code Amendment
Issue #1: Rights Established (DMMC §23.51.030)
“A person shall have the right to seek restoration and preservation of Scenic Views or Sunlight that existed at the time they purchased or occupied a property or in the last ten years, whichever is shorter…”
Policy Question - Should the “ten-year” criteria be kept, changed, or eliminated? • Most view Ordinances allow for view rights dating back to property purchase, Ordinance adoption, or both.
• In order for residents to be able to use the new TSVS Ordinance to restore views obstructed prior to its adoption, the (then) City Council determined that going back ten years was an appropriate amount of time.
• Del Mar is the only city with a view Ordinance that provides a specified time limit in addition to the purchase/occupancy date.
• When the regulations were being created, it was important to the Council that property buyers would not have a right to a view that didn’t exist at the time of purchase.
Staff Recommendation – Replace “ten years” with “the adoption of Ordinance No. 747 (July 1, 2002). This will allow residents to seek restoration of scenic views and/or sunlight obstructed since the time they purchased the property, or since adoption of the TSVS process, whichever timeframe is shorter.
Associated Guiding Principle - #1 Ensure administration of the new regulations will not overburden City resources (including staff/legal resources) Issue #2: Standards of Determining Unreasonable Obstruction (Findings) are not Objective
Policy Question - Should the criteria in the City’s Design Guidelines and California Solar Shade Control Act be used to make the Standards of Review “objective?” • 100% view restoration was never the intent of the TSVS Ordinance, otherwise the word “unreasonable” would not have been incorporated as a metric. • Objective criteria for view obstruction have already been adopted by City Council for proposed projects subject to Design Guidelines and considered by the Design Review Board.
• California Solar Shade Control Act criteria can be referenced to locally enforce existing State Code.
• DMMC §23.51.050(B) (“Standards for Determining Unreasonable Obstruction”) factors 8-17 are already stated in DMMC §23.51.060 as “Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action.”
4 December 2, 2024 Item 10 46 July 7, 2025 Item 17
• Thirty-six (36) applications have been submitted to the City in twenty-two (22) years since the regulations became effective:
o Fifteen (15) resulted in City decisions (including five being denied); and o Only one (1) out of ten (10) determinations of unreasonable view obstruction resulted in an order to remove a tree (Deftos/White).
o Updated application submittal materials will include photographic documentation and exhibits that visually calculate the percentage of obstruction.
Staff Recommendation – Narrow the “Standards of Review” down to specific, objective, verifiable findings of fact (5 or 6) for each view obstruction scenario (Scenic View, Sunlight to Solar Panels, Sunlight to Primary Living Area (PLA)).
Associated Guiding Principles:
#1 Ensure administration of the new regulations will not overburden City resources (including staff/legal resources); and #2 Establish objective application criteria and processing framework”
Issue #3: Allocation of Costs
Policy Question – Should some of the cost burden of the TSVS process be shifted to the Tree Owner and if so, how?
• The original apportionment of assigning all of the financial burden on the Applicant has been changed or updated by most jurisdictions to include the Tree Owner to some degree.
• Assigning part of the cost burden on the Tree Owner will encourage alternative conflict resolution.
• Improvement of the TSVS process by requiring more technical information at submittal, being more objective, and reducing staff time should reduce application costs.
Staff Recommendation - Inclusion of the following revisions:
A. Application fee should remain the responsibility of the Applicant.
B. Restoration cost is split 50/50 for Trees/Vegetation planted or sprouted after July 1, 2002 (initial adoption of TSVS Ordinance).
C. Tree Owner pays 100%:
i. When refuses to resolve early or mediate;
ii. Plants tree/vegetation against written objection of neighbor (Applicant);
iii. For all on-going maintenance trimming in accordance with Restoration Plan; and
iv. Applicant pays 100% for all other circumstances.
D. The applicant pays restoration costs in all other cases. 5 December 2, 2024 Item 10 47 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Associated Guiding Principles - #5 Ensure an equitable cost allocation process to initiate the view/sunlight restoration process, perform view restoration work, and maintain restored scenic views; and #6 Encourage and create a pathway for neighbors to seek an alternative route to successful dispute resolution outside of the City TSVS process Issue #4: View/Sunlight Obstruction by City Trees
Policy Question – How should TSVS claims be handled when the obstruction is caused by City trees?
• City has been a “good neighbor” relative to the TSVS process, working with residents to resolve the view blockage concern through the Encroachment Permit process, allowing the Applicant to trim City trees in order to restore views when appropriate.
• The City’s process for addressing City trees is not defined in the Ordinance. • Trimming and cost have always been resident responsibility, but City trimming could be a consideration to discuss when the subject tree is identified for routine City trimming within the next trimming cycle.
Staff Recommendation – Differentiate City trees that are in the right-of-way fronting a private property vs. City trees in parks, medians, and City-owned lots. Residents are responsible for trees between the street and their property line. For “City Trees,” create new DMMC subsection that includes a process similar to TSVS that uses the Encroachment Permit process, making the TSVS determination a staff decision, appealable to the City Council.
Associated Guiding Principle - #4 Incorporate a clear and expedited process for applications involving “City” and “Protected” trees
Issue #5: Hedge Height Regulations
Policy Question - Should the City consider creating regulatory height limits for hedges, similar to or the same as fence heights regulations?
• Thirteen (13) of twenty-six (26) jurisdictions with View Ordinances surveyed also have hedge height restrictions.
• Most jurisdictions with hedge regulations consider hedges the same as fences in the front, rear and side yard setbacks.
• Need to consider how existing over-height hedges would be addressed. • Approximately 1/3 of all TSVS application submitted since 2002 involved hedges or hedge-like plantings of trees.
• Could add “hedges” where applicable in DMMC Section 30.86.090.A.1-3 (Fences/Retaining Walls), and this would not require a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA).
6 December 2, 2024 Item 10 48 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Staff Recommendation – Regulate hedges with heights found to be appropriate by the City Council. Incorporating hedges into DMMC §30.86.090 would not allow hedges to exceed six (6) feet in most setback areas, solving traffic sightline issues, “tunnel effect” on streets, etc. Hedges taller than the fence/wall regulations could be planted in the “buildable” area of the lot and would be more susceptible to TVSV claims.
Associated Guiding Principle - #9 Provide an objective balance between the privacy provided by hedges and a neighbor’s established scenic views and/or sunlight through consideration of height regulations
7 December 2, 2024 Item 10 49 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Additional Proposed TSVS
Amendments/Revisions
The following have been identified as proposed revisions to the TSVS regulations, process, and procedures.
A. Various revisions and additions to definitions section of Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 23.51 (TSVS).
B. Prohibit “group” applications (multiple properties seeking restoration) C. Require application materials to include a tree report and restoration recommendation from a certified arborist (at the cost of the applicant).
D. Add allowances and limitations on requested postponements of the public hearing.
E. Prohibit significantly excessive restoration costs.
F. Transfer oversight of Restorative Action from Planning staff to a 3rd Party. 8 December 2, 2024 Item 10 50 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Item 10
Issue Identification for an Update to the Trees,
Scenic Views, and Sunlight (TSVS) Regulations
December 2, 2024
51 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Background/Purpose
On October 7, 2024, staff presented to the City Council nine “guiding principles” to inform and influence the updating of the TSVS. The City Council received public testimony, discussed the draft guiding principles, and provided additional direction to ensure that the preservation of “sunlight,” in addition to scenic views, is given equal weight in the guiding principles and revisions to the TSVS regulations.
Evaluation of the TSVS regulations has identified many reoccurring issues to be addressed in an amendment to DMMC Chapter 23.51.
Staff is seeking early City Council input and direction for five (5) specific issue areas at this time:
1) The time-period for which view restoration can be sought 2) Required findings for determining unreasonable scenic view and/or sunlight obstruction 3) Cost apportionment
4) Claims against City trees
5) Hedge height regulations
52 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Issue #1 – Established Rights
Policy Question – In DMMC Section 23.51.030, should the “ten-year” criteria be kept, changed, or eliminated?
“A person shall have the right to seek restoration and preservation of Scenic Views or Sunlight that existed at the time they purchased or occupied a property or in the last ten years, whichever is shorter…”
Staff Recommendation – Replace “ten years” with “the adoption of Ordinance No. 747 (July 1, 2002). This will allow residents to seek restoration of scenic views and/or sunlight obstructed since the time they purchased the property, or since adoption of the TSVS process, whichever timeframe is shorter.
Associated Guiding Principle:
#1 Ensure administration of the new regulations will not overburden City resources (including staff/legal resources)
53 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Issue # 2 - Required Findings
Policy Question - Should the criteria in the City’s Design Guidelines and California Solar Shade Control Act be used to make the Standards of Review “objective?” Staff Recommendation – Narrow the “Standards of Review” down to specific, objective, verifiable findings of fact (5 or 6) for each view obstruction scenario (Scenic View, Sunlight to Solar Panels, Sunlight to Primary Living Area (PLA)).
Associated Guiding Principles:
#1 Ensure administration of the new regulations will not overburden City resources (including staff/legal resources); and
#2 Establish objective application criteria and processing framework” 54 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Issue # 3 - Cost Apportionment
Policy Question – Should some of the cost burden of the TSVS process be shifted to the Tree Owner and if so, how?
Staff Recommendation - Inclusion of the following revisions:
A. Application fee should remain the responsibility of the Applicant.
B. Restoration cost is split 50/50 for Trees/Vegetation planted or sprouted after July 1, 2002 (initial adoption of TSVS Ordinance).
C. Tree Owner pays 100%:
i. When refuses to resolve early or mediate
ii. Plants tree/vegetation against written objection of neighbor (Applicant) iii. For all on-going maintenance trimming in accordance with Restoration Plan iv. Applicant pays 100% for all other circumstances
D. The applicant pays restoration costs in all other circumstances.
Associated Guiding Principles:
#5 Ensure an equitable cost allocation process to initiate the view/sunlight restoration process, perform view restoration work, and maintain restored scenic views
#6 Encourage and create a pathway for neighbors to seek an alternative route to successful dispute resolution outside of the City TSVS process
55 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Issue # 4 – City Trees
Policy Question – How should TSVS claims be handled when the obstruction is caused by City trees?
Staff Recommendation – Differentiate trees that are in the public right-of-way fronting a private property vs. “City trees” in parks, medians, and City-owned lots. • Residents are responsible for trees between the street and their property line. • For “City Trees,” create new DMMC subsection that includes a process similar to TSVS that uses the Encroachment Permit process, making the TSVS determination a staff decision, appealable to the City Council.
Associated Guiding Principle:
#4 Incorporate a clear and expedited process for applications involving “City” and “Protected” trees
56 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Issue # 5 - Regulating Hedge Heights
Policy Question - Should the City consider creating regulatory height limits for hedges, similar to or the same as fence heights regulations? Staff Recommendation – Regulate hedges with heights found to be appropriate by the City Council. Incorporating hedges into DMMC §30.86.090 would not allow hedges to exceed six (6) feet in most setback areas, solving traffic sightline issues, “tunnel effect” on streets, etc. Hedges taller than the fence/wall regulations could be planted in the “buildable” area of the lot and would be more susceptible to TVSV claims.
Associated Guiding Principle:
#9 Provide an objective balance between the privacy provided by hedges and a neighbor’s established scenic views and/or sunlight through consideration of height regulations
57 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Additional Revisions Proposed
The following have been identified as proposed revisions to the TSVS regulations, process, and procedures.
A. Various revisions and additions to definitions section of Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 23.51 (TSVS)
B. Prohibit “group” applications (multiple properties seeking restoration) C. Require application materials to include a tree report and restoration recommendation from a certified arborist (at the cost of the applicant) D. Add allowances and limitations on requested postponements of the public hearing
E. Prohibit significantly excessive restoration costs
F. Transfer oversight of Restorative Action from Planning staff to a 3rd Party 58 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the City Council receive an informational update and provide feedback and direction regarding proposed issue areas to be amended in the City’s Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight regulations
59 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Project Initiation
Research Other
Jurisdiction’s
Regulations (27)
Summer 2024
Fall 2024
Analyze Past TSVS
Projects-Trends
Present Guiding
Principles to
Planning
Subcommittee and
City Council
Information
Update/Direction
to City Council on
Primary Issues to
Address
Winter 2024
(December)
Winter 2024
(Jan-Feb)
Prepare Draft TSVS
Regulations/CEQA
Planning
Commission
TSVS
Regulations/CEQA
City Council
Spring 2024
* LCPA Not Required
Update of TSVS Regulations - Timeline
60 July 7, 2025 Item 17
11 61 July 7, 2025 Item 17
TSVS Update – Guiding Principles
1. Ensure administration of the new regulations will not overburden City resources (including staff/legal resources)
2. Establish objective application criteria and processing framework
3. Rely upon precise, objective, and documentable decision findings to reduce appeals and legal challenges to the greatest extent possible
4. Incorporate a clear and expedited process for applications involving “City” and “Protected” trees
5. Ensure an equitable cost allocation process to initiate the view/sunlight restoration process, perform view restoration work, and maintain restored scenic views
6. Encourage and create a pathway for neighbors to seek an alternative route to successful dispute resolution outside of the City TSVS process
7. Balance and acknowledge the needs of private view/sunlight protection with all benefits provided by tree and vegetation growth, the goals of the Climate Action Plan, the goals and provisions of the Design Review process and the City’s tree policies and regulations
8. Address the applicability of “accidental” views (downed trees, fire impacts, etc.) and “good neighbor” view creation in the context of view rights established by the regulations
9. Provide an objective balance between the privacy provided by hedges and a neighbor’s established scenic views and/or sunlight through consideration of height regulations 62 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Potential Draft Objective Findings
1. The subject Tree(s) is located within 300 feet of the Applicant’s property.
2. The Applicant’s Scenic View is consistent with the definition provided in DMMC Section23.51.020 (M).
3. The Applicant’s stated Primary Living Area is consistent with the definition provided in DMMC Section
23.51.020 (J).
4. The Applicant has contacted the subject Tree owner and has made reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute as set forth in DMMC Subsection 23.51.040.B. Proof of the Applicant's efforts shall include documented attempts (registered mail, etc.) to reach and confer with the Subject Tree owner, and documentation supporting efforts to mediate the dispute.
5. Based on review of verified photographic documentation and calculations, the Applicant’s scenic view has been reduced more than the maximum allowed percentage of obstruction listed for the “View type,” as provided in the table contained in DMMC Section 23.51. XXX.
6. Restoration of the Applicant’s Scenic View will not create an infringement on the Tree Owner’s privacy that cannot be reasonably mitigated.
63 July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: Camilla Rang <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2024 9:53 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item #10, City Council meeting 12.02.2024
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 am so grateful that you are updating the TSVS and putting an effort into making the view blocking neighbor be more active in the process and cost. The view blocking neighbor has to be aware that part of the cost will be shifted over to him/her if the case is decided against him/her, or there is absolutely no incentive for him/her to do anything to resolve the issue (which we have seen happening over and over).
I would even push it a little further. Since the application fee is so high, I would ask that the view blocking neighbor will have to either pay full or half that cost if the case is decided against him/her. In legal trials, the party who loses the case pays all. This is not a legal trial, but there should be a hefty cost to not participate in the process and being unwilling to be a good neighbor and following the rules. Rows of 30-80 foot trees as a wall is not OK.
Thank you again.
Sincerely,
Camilla Rang
December 2, 2024 Item 10 64 July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Adriana Jaramishian
To: Matt Bator
Subject: RE: Regarding TSVS 24-002 and proposed changes to the TSVS process- RED DOT From: scott reineck <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 8:56 PM
To: Planning Mail Box <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Regarding TSVS 24-002 and proposed changes to the TSVS process- RED DOT 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.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: hikensurf <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: scott reineck <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2025 at 08:53:51 PM PDT
Subject: Regarding TSVS 24-002 and proposed changes to the TSVS process Dear Chairman Posner and Del Mar Planning Commissioners, We are writing to comment on our experience as a Tree, Scenic View, and Sunlight (TSVS) applicant, TSVS 24-002, and to propose changes to the application process.
Firstly, we commend Commissioners Leonard, Grewal, and Posner for their integrity in evaluating our view blockage claim. Ruling in our favor, despite the opposing party being a former colleague, demonstrated fairness and gives us hope for improving the TSVS process.
However, significant issues arose during our case. We received only one day's notice for the February remediation hearing while we were out of the country, preventing us from presenting our side or arranging representation. This lack of adequate notice was a serious lapse in fairness.
Furthermore, the core issue involved a tree planted by our neighbors, the Bakkers, on a city easement under a revocable encroachment permit. We initially followed city guidance, shifting from a tree removal application to pursuing a TSVS, first against the city, then against the Bakkers. Crucially, the city's own codes (e.g., 23.28.010, 23.28.180A) state these encroachment permits are temporary and revocable at the city's discretion. Codes 23.28.130K and 23.28.180D explicitly state that upon revocation, the permit holder bears all costs for removing the encroachment.
These vital codes, which strongly suggest the Bakkers should have paid for their tree's removal, were seemingly ignored during the remediation discussion. Instead, some commissioners suggested we pay for removal, replacement, and additional landscaping. While Chairman Posner and Commissioner Spieker guided the discussion towards a less unreasonable outcome, the failure to apply the relevant encroachment permit codes resulted in an unjust financial burden on us. Following the city's advice to use the TSVS process should not negate other applicable city regulations.
As a result, despite "prevailing," we incurred $6,560 for the TSVS application and another $9,243 for tree removal, which included a surprising amount of $2768 for traffic control. The overall cost is $15,803. This outcome does not feel like justice.
This experience highlights fundamental flaws in the current TSVS process. It is stressful, expensive, and places the burden unfairly on the applicant – the victim whose view has been blocked, often for years. There's a misalignment of incentives when one resident can obstruct a neighbor's primary scenic view using public property under a revocable
ATTACHMENT E
65 July 7, 2025 Item 17
2 permit, facing no cost or consequence, while the affected neighbor pays thousands and is treated almost as the offending party.
Looking forward, the TSVS process must be reformed to weigh more favorably towards the applicant seeking view restoration. This aligns with Del Mar's Community Plan, which emphasizes preserving view corridors (Goal 3, Obj. B, Policy 3). As residents "of the Sea," our connection to ocean vistas is fundamental. While we value trees, the unique coastal character of Del Mar necessitates prioritizing the preservation and restoration of ocean views, consistent with our community identity.
We propose that:
1. The burden of proof should shift to the owner of the obstructing vegetation to justify blocking a neighbor's primary scenic view.
2. The costs associated with the TSVS process, including application fees and vegetation removal/trimming, should be primarily, if not entirely, borne by the party whose vegetation is causing the obstruction.
Let's adjust the process to truly protect and reclaim the scenic views that define Del Mar for the benefit of all residents "of the sea."
Sincerely,
Scott and Lori Reineck
Addendums:
City codes
23.28.010. All encroachments onto public areas are expressly revocable at any time at the sole discretion of the City Council or its agents.
23.28.180A. Encroachment Permit applications are requests to work in or use public property on a temporary basis. At its sole discretion, the City may revoke any Encroachment Permit and demand the applicant or successor in interest to remove the encroachment.
23.28.130K. By accepting an issued Encroachment Permit, the Permittee explicitly agrees that, upon notice from the City, the Encroachments authorized in the Permit shall be removed. All costs for removal of the Encroachments shall be borne by the applicant, or, where applicable, by the successor in interest.
23.28.180D. The cost for removal of Encroachments shall be borne solely by the Permittee or the successor in interest.
Del Mar Community Plan
Goal 3, Objective B, Policy 3. Where possible, encourage the preservation and reclamation of view corridors through judicial trimming of mature trees and vegetation.
66 July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Adriana Jaramishian
To: Matt Bator
Subject: RE: RED DOT - 23.51.040 Process for Alleging Obstruction of Scenic Views and/or Sunlight
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:34 AM
To: Planning Mail Box <[email protected]>
Cc: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>; Nigel Hook <[email protected]> Subject: RED DOT - 23.51.040 Process for Alleging Obstruction of Scenic Views and/or Sunlight 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 Planning Commission,
1. It appears that Chapter 23.51 Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight has been changed to require "photographic evidence" from inside the Primary Living Area and that without a photograph, a claim may not be submitted. Previously, "documentable evidence" was accepted, including statements from neighbors, gardeners, etc. I agree that a photograph is the best evidence, but I argue that a picture should not be required because there are circumstances where a photo may not be available. Still, the claim can be proven by other evidence.
2. Is Sunlight only protected in a Primary Living Area?
3. Should "Photographic Evidence" be added to Chapter 30.04 Definitions? In the past, there has been reluctance to recognize Google Earth photographs as evidence. This has been taken into account here:
23.51.040(A)(1)
Applicant’s Certified Arborist may use other sources to obtain this information, such as photographs taken from other properties, satellite photographs from commercially available sources, and public permit information for work performed on the Tree Owner’s property.
Thank you,
Janet Wilson
635 Hoska Dr.
Del Mar, CA 92014
67 July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Adriana Jaramishian
To: Matt Bator
Subject: RE: RED DOT - Regarding 30.86.090 Fences/Retaining Walls/Hedges E. Maximum Allowed Hedge Height for Existing Hedges
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:13 AM
To: Planning Mail Box <[email protected]>
Cc: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>; Nigel Hook <[email protected]> Subject: RED DOT - Regarding 30.86.090 Fences/Retaining Walls/Hedges E. Maximum Allowed Hedge Height for Existing Hedges
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 Planning Commissioners,
Updating Del Mar’s Fence Ordinance, 30.86.09, by including hedges makes good sense and will alleviate some traffic sightline issues, the “tunnel effect” on many of our streets, and reduce TSVS claims.
Hedges provide many benefits. They create a green fence/barrier and provide privacy, noise reduction, and wind protection.
However, they can also be a fire concern, especially if they are dense, made of flammable materials, or not adequately maintained. Many older hedges are nearing the end of their life cycle and have become woody.
The Planning Commission should consider incorporating a review process for existing hedges instead of the abrupt transition on a specific date, 30.86.09(E). Because change is difficult, I understand the blanket “grandfathering” of over-height hedges. Still, there should be a process to review existing hedges; many are towering 15-20 feet, sometimes over 20 feet, without a direct benefit (typically privacy) for the hedge owner.
In many circumstances, an existing, over-height hedge does not directly benefit the owner. Still, that hedge negatively impacts the adjacent property by depriving it of sunlight or creating an unnecessary fire risk. For example, a single-story home averages 10-15 feet tall, with windows typically two or more feet lower. A 6- or even 10-foot hedge easily achieves privacy and reduces noise, allowing sunlight between homes. It does not take a 20-foot hedge to provide privacy and reduce noise.
My neighborhood zone is R1-10, and the homes can be as close as 15 feet (property line setback 7.5 feet). When a hedge running between homes has been allowed to grow 20+ feet tall, sunlight on the side of both houses has been virtually eliminated. While complete sunlight blockage may be acceptable to one homeowner, the other owner may not want to be forced to live in constant shade.
23.51.010(A)(3):
“This Chapter acknowledges the benefits derived from Trees, Scenic Views and plentiful Sunlight, and balances the goal of maintaining each of them, when possible.” 68 July 7, 2025 Item 17
2 Plentiful Sunshine surrounds us in Del Mar, not only in Primary Living Areas. Sunlight is essential to the environment.
It is possible to incorporate a hedge review process for existing, over-height hedges that considers traffic, fire safety, and sunlight enjoyment while maintaining privacy and wind protection for the hedge owner.
It is possible to balance these goals.
Thank you,
Janet Wilson
635 Hoska Dr.
Del Mar, CA 92014
69 July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Adriana Jaramishian
To: Matt Bator
Subject: RE: Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action seem irrelevant to an "objective" TSVS Ordinance
From: Michael Deftos <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:21 PM
To: Matt Bator <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action seem irrelevant to an "objective" 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.
Correction:
...unreasonably obstructed view (the total prior view minus 5 to 20%)...
On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 11:19 PM Michael Deftos <[email protected]> wrote:
If the intent is to restore 100% of the unreasonably obstructed view (the total prior view minus 0 to 20%), the only question following the finding of unreasonable view obstruction is the method used to restore that view. Presumably, this would be the least impactful tree modification method that restores 100% of the unreasonably obstructed view (80-95% of the prior view). This is different from the current ordinance, which at two steps attempts to subjectively balance the burdens/benefits of the trees/scenic view (using essentially the same criteria since several of the 17 criteria are more procedural).
With the “objective” draft TSVS Ordinance, most of the Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action (23.51.070) do not seem relevant (or are minimally relevant) since they generally would not influence the tree modification methodology necessary to restore the view and relate more to potentially beneficial qualities of the tree that might weigh against complete view restoration. 70 July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Matt Bator
Subject: FW: 101 11th Street
From: Linda Castile <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2025 9:22 PM
To: Planning Mail Box <[email protected]>
Subject: 101 11th Street
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:
We will be out of town for the June 10th meeting of the Planning Commission. I understand that there will be no public comments on the status of the trimming of the trees impacting Dr. Anstis’s view.
Please reschedule this meeting to allow comments.
Thank you,
Linda Castile
137 11th Street
71 July 7, 2025 Item 17
To: Matt Bator, Principal Planner; Planning Commission Members From: Catherine and Peter Cramton, 901 Highland Ave., Del Mar Re: TSVS Ordinance Amendments, June 10 Planning Meeting Agenda Date: 6 June 2025
Dear Matt and Planning Commission Members:
We have studied the proposed changes to the Trees Scenic Views and Sunlight (TSVS) Ordinance and the recorded debate of these matters by the Planning Commission. We write to submit our questions and concerns.
We thank members of the Planning Commission and City StaƯ for the benefits we all enjoy of their time and talents in support of our community. We all play a role in arriving at good decisions and good policy, and this is the spirit in which we oƯer our comments.
The proposed ordinance addresses two major matters: 1) TSVS rules and procedure and 2) potential city-wide changes in allowable hedge heights. Our comments are divided accordingly.
Lengthening the TSVS Lookback Period from 10 years to 23 years We have major concerns about lengthening the window for bringing a TSVS view blockage case from the current 10 years to up to 23 years (i.e., seeking to restore a view from as long ago as 2002).
The ten-year lookback period has been established here in Del Mar for more than two decades.
Public awareness of and timely use of TSVS processes were discussed in the hearings. This is what we took from those discussions: The processes and expectations are generally well understood by the Del Mar community and people are attentive to maintaining their views. It also was pointed out that the realtor community is familiar with TSVS processes and that clients are advised to document their views. We saw no advocacy in the letters and Red Dots submitted that the 10-year lookback period be changed.
There was considerable concern about the arduousness and cost of seeking remediation under current TSVS procedures, and the City resources required (e.g. staƯ, legal). These are separable matters from the 10-year lookback period, in our opinion. We noted the argument that the lookback period should be lengthened because of the diƯiculty of validating evidentiary photos. To us, it does not directly follow that this procedural diƯiculty should result in a major departure from precedented rights and responsibilities. For example, the City could select a state-of-the-art photo validation service. If a tree owner has doubts about the validity of an evidentiary photo, the City could submit the photo to its service, for which the tree owner would be billed.
We think it is important to consider the purposes served by the 10-year lookback period as a longstanding part of the ordinance. Presumably, it is intended to incentivize property owners concerned about view obstruction to act on their concerns sooner than later, either in dialogue with the neighbor or, if necessary, through the TSVS process. This minimizes the need for drastic remediation measures much later, such as severe pruning, and removal of mature landscapes and mature trees. It puts on notice sooner neighbors whose landscaping has infringed rather than decades later.
72 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Drastically changing a well-established precedent usually brings unforeseen consequences, which can be negative and can produce conflict. Lengthening the scope of remediation to views up to 23 years in the past could result in destabilizing surprises for everyone downstream (toward the ocean). Most of us likely have no idea what the landscape around us was like 23 years ago, particularly upstream, and could be surprised by TSVS cases. In addition, it becomes more likely that ownership of a subject property has changed in the interim and that new owners are blindsided by a claim based on long ago conditions. Such surprises could stir considerable conflict.
When a claim from a distant date is brought, there also is greater potential that not only the most salient trees or landscape features have changed, but also additional features beyond the salient foliage. Some of those features could be within 300 feet but others – additional trees, perhaps even buildings – could be outside the 300-foot range but still problematic for restoration. This could be a significant factor that limits restoration for distant ocean views as the lookback period lengthens.
More changes downstream have occurred, and they may be well established. We doubt how realistic or desirable it is to expect to restore conditions from so long ago.
Interaction EƯects between TSVS revision and Fire Safety Measures While we are not versed in potential consequences of new fire risk management mandates, we are aware that some trees in the city already are being taken down and that some residents may need to remove or modify trees and/or landscaping for reasons related to these mandates.
When there is a significant, new imperative that shrinks the urban canopy, it seems unwise to open an additional vector of erosion by lengthening the lookback period. In other words, if many trees and vegetation are removed because of their position relative to fire risk, we should manage even more carefully those trees and vegetation that are in positions of less risk. It seems to us unwise to unleash simultaneously a second set of pressures on old growth vegetation by lengthening the TSVS lookback period. It seems better to wait for a clearer picture of the fire prevention process.
We also think that care should be taken to separate concerns about fire and concerns regarding the maintenance of scenic views and sunlight. In other words, concerns about fire should not be built into the TSVS ordinance but rather into fire related legislation.
Summary
On this matter, we urge the Planning Commission to stick with the precedented and understood 10- year lookback period, while seeking to address process concerns in ways less destabilizing, less likely to lead to the removal of mature trees and holding less potential for new types of conflict. All of this could generate more, not less, pressure on City resources (staƯ and legal) and on an evershrinking urban canopy.
The benefits of trees and mature landscapes are communal. This is recognized in Del Mar’s Community Plan and in the original TSVS ordinance, both of which seek to strike a balance between two sources of beauty and inspiration that we enjoy in our community – ocean views and our cooling urban canopy. Changing the 10-year lookback period to 23 years without urgent cause shifts the balance too far in one direction, when it seems possible to address the most important sources of stress with other policy measures.
73 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Hedges
Regarding hedges, we think the Planning Commission has made an important distinction between regulations concerning new hedges and established hedges. In the case of new hedges and new landscapes, they can be designed with updated regulations in mind, incorporating appropriate proportions.
When walking around Del Mar, we do see many fence-hedge combinations. Hedges can break up the aesthetic monotony of fences. Generally, it looks better if the hedge is slightly higher than the fence rather than the exact same height. Therefore, if a hedge limitation is to be instituted for new designs, it might produce more attractive results if a hedge could be slightly higher than a fence.
In addition, we noted a concern raised in the June issue of The Sandpiper: “For adjacent properties at diƯerent elevations, six feet high hedges might be insuƯicient to provide privacy.” Since much of Del Mar is hilly, we think this is worth considering.
We support the management of established hedges with the toolkit provided by existing ordinances. Del Mar has quite a few well-maintained hedges that are proportionate to the trees and landscape around them and contribute to the beauty of our community. 74 July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Matt Bator
Subject: FW: Red dot Item 1 June 10th Planning Commission Meeting TSVS Ordinance Revisions From: Michael Deftos <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 9:11 AM
To: Planning Mail Box <[email protected]>
Subject: Red dot Item 1 June 10th Planning Commission Meeting TSVS Ordinance Revisions 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 Planning Commission,
The current TSVS ordinance does not define how much of an unreasonably obstructed view should be restored, and leaves this determination to the discretion of the Planning Commission. It has Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action (23.51.060), a list of potentially beneficial or detrimental qualities of the subject tree to consider in determining what action should be taken to restore the view (ranging from trimming to tree removal). These include whether the subject tree is a protected tree or adds “value” to the community/neighborhood. Consideration of these Criteria in determining the Appropriate Restorative Action can influence how much of the view is ordered to be restored. Presumably, the intent is to “acknowledge the benefits derived from Trees, Scenic Views and plentiful Sunlight and to balance the goal of maintaining each of them when possible,” sometimes limiting view restoration in the interest of maintaining the beneficial qualities of the subject tree.
For the proposed new ordinance, it was indicated that the intent is for unreasonably obstructed views to be restored to the standard of reasonableness established by the Design Guidelines (“You would have to bring it back to whatever the reasonableness standard is”). However, the proposed new TSVS ordinance retains the Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action (23.51.070), which confuses this. If the intent is restoration of the view to the standard of reasonableness of the Design Guidelines, the next step is to determine how to restore the view to this standard. The Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action are largely irrelevant to this determination.
Can City staff please confirm or refute that the intent of the proposed new ordinance is restoration of the view to the reasonableness standard of the Design Guidelines, and clarify how the Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action are intended to be applied in the decision-making process? Thanks,
Michael Deftos
75 July 7, 2025 Item 17
June 8, 2025
To: Matt Bator, Principal Planner and Planning Commission Members Re: Item #1–TSVS Amendments; June 10, 2025 Planning Commission Agenda Dear Matt, Chair Posner & Planning Commission Members:
We have previously submitted letters to the Planning Commission—signed by more than 50 Del Mar residents— spelling out our questions and concerns about the draft TSVS Ordinance.
We are writing now—with an even higher level of community support (60+residents)—because a few of our questions were not addressed, and some of our recommendations were not discussed, although they were referenced by Matt at the last meeting.
As previously stated, our concerns relate primarily to how this revised ordinance will address the need to balance applicant’s rights to view restoration with the need to preserve our urban tree canopy for consistency with our Community Plan, Local Coastal Plan and Climate Action Plan
as well as other benefits including public health, referenced in Guiding Principle #7. We are also concerned that with tree owners being overtly incentivized to bypass the TSVS process due to its higher costs and other burdens, they may not follow International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) standards if they are not required to. Will all trimming of protected trees— especially Torrey Pines and Monterey Cypress—in the public right-of-way—be required to follow ISA standards regardless of whether or not there is an approved TSVS Restorative Action?
Issue #1 - Unintended consequences of allowing trees to be trimmed without the involvement of a certified arborist. Del Mar should make the effort to ensure that all tree trimming—especially trees in the public right-of-way, where the City can exercise greater control—meets the same standards as trees in our downtown.
To provide some context as to the prevalence of mature and protected trees in the public rightof-way and therefore the potential negative impact on our tree canopy, we have attached an exhibit that summarizes the inventory and distribution of public trees by family/species. Also of vital importance is the need for the City to reference in the ordinance ISA best management practices for pruning protected trees and incorporate it into definitions for restorative action such as Crown Reduction/Shaping. The City should also seek ISA guidance on how best to prevent the spreading of Fusarium circinatum, a fungal disease which has already devastated the Torrey Pines Reserve. We would recommend the following clause be added to the appropriate ordinance(s):
“Any business, which performs structural pruning or tree removal of protected trees in the City, must be in possession of a Del Mar business license, and must have an ISA-Certified Arborist on staff, in a supervisory position for the accomplishment of such work.” Issue #2 - No requirement to replace trees that the Planning Commission or City Council orders to be removed. If Guiding Principle #7—relative to the City’s Climate Action Plan—is to be granted the weight it deserves, the ordinance should seek to avoid the removal of protected trees and mature trees. If—as a last resort—such trees must be removed, replacement trees should be required. Please raise the bar for removing such trees by requiring mitigation for the loss of tree canopy. (23.51.080.6)
76 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Issue #3 - The definition of Scenic View precludes views created by illegal activity or natural disasters. We would like to have confirmation that this definition is sufficient to preclude scenic views created by fallen trees and trees that have succumbed to insect infestations and fungal and other diseases. Perhaps a definition is required for fallen tree. (23.51.020.S)
Issue #4 - The categorization of a genus of tree as undesirable in the City’s out-of-date Tree Policy Manual or in a nearly 20-year-old City Council determination should not be a consideration in determining restorative action—including removal. Decision making based on the undesirability of a family, genus or species of trees should be paused until the City completes the “Comprehensive Tree Policy and Regulatory Standards Update.” (23.51.070.L)
Issue #5 - The applicant should be required to pay for all-TSVS-related application fees, including the cost to provide a tree survey performed by an ISA-certified arborist. It is certainly reasonable for the costs of any required restoration measures to be shared by both parties.
Thank you for your consideration of these important factors as you work to finalize the TSVS ordinance.
We appreciate your attention and consideration of these important issues.
Sincerely,
Richard & Dolores Davies Jamison Carol Kerridge
Crest Road El Amigo Road
Amy Isackson Dwight Worden
Pine Needles Drive Seaview Avenue
Beth Levine Ron Prater
Crest Road Zapo Street
John & Gail Graybill Carol Isackson
15th Street Pine Needles Drive
John & Mary Giebink Ron & Susan Taylor
Stratford Court Crest Road
Ann Feeney & Don Mosier John Goodkind
Rimini Road Forest Way
Rosanne Holliday Sandy & Bram Dijkstra
Crest Road Rimini Road
Mary Friestedt Linda & Frank Chisari
Bellaire Street Crest Road
Anne Farrell Valerie Dufort & Sudeepto Roy Via Alta Klish Avenue
Scott & Lisa Renner Pat Bone
77 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Via Alta Culebra
Street
Gloria Sandvik & Harold Feder Art Olson & Shirley King Crest Road Avenida Primavera
Sheila & Michael Sharpe Judy & Marc Schuckit
15th Street Kalamath Street
Joan & Craig Brown Jason Dempsey
Crest Road Crest Road
Katherine Sohn Cathy & Shige
Iwane
26th Street Pine Needles Drive
Tanya Schneiderman Penny & Buck Abell
Hoska Drive Serpentine Drive
Fran & Nick Frost Palmer & Susan Taylor
Crest Road Via Alta
Phil & Eric Gerber Doug & Janette Shelton
Pine Needles Drive Rimini Road
Nicole & Ari Gesher Carole & Alex Renner
Crest Road Via Alta
Catherine & Peter Cramton Mara Bickett
Highland Avenue Van Dyke Avenue
Lucy Taylor Janet Wilson
15th Street Hoska Avenue
Attachment
78 July 7, 2025 Item 17
AaaaCAARichard & Dolores Davies Jamison Carol Kerridge Crest Road El Amigo Road
Amy Isackson Dwight Worden
Pine Needles Drive Seaview
Avenue
Beth Levine Ron Prater
Crest Road Street
John & Gail Graybill Carol Isackson
15th Street Pine Needles
Drive
John & Mary Gi Ron & Susan Taylor
Stratford Court Crest Road
Ann Feeney Pat Bone
Rimini Road
Roseanne Holliday Katherine Sohn
Crest Road 26th Street
Sandy & Bram Dijkstra Mary Friestedt
Rimini Road Bellaire Street
John Goodkind Doug & Janette Shelton
Forest Way Rimini Road
Valerie Dufort & Sudeepto Roy Linda & Frank Chisari Crest Ro
Gloria S Feder Anne Farrell
Crest Road Via Alta
Scott & Lisa Renner Art Olson & Shirley King Via Alta Avenida
Primavera
Sheila & Michael Sharpe Jason Dempsey
15th Street Crest Road
Joan & Craig Brown Judy & Marc Schuckit
Crest Road Crest Road
79 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Cathy & Pine Needles Drive Crest
Road
Penny & Buck Abell Tanya Schneiderman
Serpentine Drive Drive
Palmer & Susan Taylor Phi & Eric Gerber
Via Alta Pine
Needles Drive
80 July 7, 2025 Item 17
June 10, 2025
Dear Planning Commission,
After submitting a Red Dot regarding the proposal to update the Fence Ordinance to include hedges, I realized that sharing a real-life example illustrating why grandfathering in tall hedges poses a serious fire risk might be helpful.
We have a hedge along Hoska Drive that stands over 10 feet tall. It doesn’t need to be that tall for privacy. Given the recent Eaton and Palisades fires, and after learning that our neighborhood is classified in CAL FIRE’s newly updated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, we decided to take proactive steps.
Managing vegetation is critical for fire prevention, so I asked our gardeners to reduce the hedge to 6 feet.
After trimming the western half, we were surprised to discover a large amount of dry, dead material concealed beneath what had appeared to be a healthy, green hedge. This type of debris is highly flammable and poses a clear fire danger.
Naturally, the hedge will regrow and green up again, but this experience made it clear that even seemingly healthy hedges can hide dangerous fuel loads. I’m sharing this as a reminder that managing hedge height is about more than privacy or appearance—it’s also an important safety issue.
Sincerely,
Janet Wilson and Nigel Hook
635 Hoska Dr.
Hedge at 635 Hoska Dr.
The left side of the hedge is now 6-7 feet (previously 10+ feet). The right side is 10+ feet. 81 July 7, 2025 Item 17
After reducing the left side of the hedge to 6 feet, we found a significant amount of dry, brittle, kindling-like branches hidden beneath the outer foliage.
The right side is scheduled to be trimmed next, and it's likely concealing the same type of dry, flammable material.
82 July 7, 2025 Item 17
May 13, 2025
Janet Wilson & Nigel Hook
635 Hoska Dr.
Del Mar, CA
RE: 30.86.090 Fences/Retaining Walls/Hedges
Dear Planning Commission,
While we fully support the regulation of hedges, we oppose the automatic grandfathering of existing hedges.
There are numerous valid reasons to regulate hedges:
1. Traffic Safety and Visibility: Tall hedges near intersections, driveways, or sidewalks obstruct the views of both drivers and pedestrians, thereby increasing the risk of accidents, especially since many streets in Del Mar lack sidewalks.
2. Fire Safety: California is prone to wildfires. Overgrown hedges and vegetation serve as fuel; therefore, height and maintenance regulations help reduce fire hazards.
3. Neighborhood Aesthetics and Uniformity: Zoning codes aim to maintain a consistent visual appearance in residential neighborhoods. Tall hedges might be seen as imposing or disruptive to the local character, and some streets in Del Mar feel like tunnels.
4. Light and Air Access: Very tall hedges block sunlight and airflow to neighboring properties, negatively impacting the quality of life and potentially reducing property value.
These impacts should not be ignored simply because a hedge has been in place for some time.
Del Mar is a mature city with numerous established hedges—many of which would exceed the proposed height limits. While hedges can provide valuable privacy—typically achievable at heights of 6 to 8 feet—they can also create problems when overgrown. Tall or poorly maintained hedges have been known to cause safety hazards, block public views, and reduce sunlight to neighboring properties.
Existing hedges should not be automatically exempted based on their age or planting date. Instead, they should be evaluated based on their actual impacts—automatic grandfathering would allow problems to continue indefinitely.
Unlike permanent structures, hedges are not fixed; they can be trimmed, replaced, or replanted at relatively low cost. For that reason, automatic grandfathering of vegetation is unnecessary and runs counter to the City’s goals for fire safety, environmental quality, and neighborhood character.
To find a balanced solution, I support the creation of a Hedge Review Process—keeping in mind that a process will be required for new hedges—modeled after the one used in Laguna Beach where exceptions might be granted only if the hedge does not pose a fire risk, create a safety hazard, or obstruct sunlight or public views.
The burden should be on the hedge owner to justify an exception and demonstrate that their hedge does not present risks or negatively affect neighboring properties.
A case-by-case review process enables more equitable and context-sensitive decisions that consider individual circumstances while prioritizing public safety, neighborhood quality, and the City’s long-term planning objectives.
83 July 7, 2025 Item 17
We are especially concerned about fire safety—the Palisades and Eaton fires were truly frightening and eyeopening.
At the April 24 City Council meeting, Chief Josh Gordon presented the newly updated CAL FIRE map showing Del Mar’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones (www.delmar.ca.us/920/Fire-Hazard-Severity-Zone-Map-Updates).
The majority of Del Mar is now classified as "High" or "Very High".
Now is the time to strengthen fire safety standards for both fences and hedges.
With Section 30.86.090 being updated to include hedges, this is a timely opportunity to address both fences and hedges as potential fire hazards. When hedges burn, they release embers that can ignite nearby vegetation or structures, and like wooden fences, they can act as pathways for fire to spread.
1. New fences should be constructed using fire-retardant materials to reduce the risk of ignition and help protect adjacent structures.
2. New hedges should consist of fire-resistant plant varieties.
3. All hedges should be maintained with a width proportional to their height and should not exceed 3 feet in width. Dead material must be removed.
4. Ember Traps - Tall, dense hedges trap wind-blown embers, significantly increasing the risk of ignition and fire spread.
5. Vertical Clearance - The space between the lowest tree branch and the top of any hedge should be at least three times the height of the hedge, per CAL FIRE guidelines (fire.ca.gov/dspace). This clearance should apply to patio covers and overhangs above hedges.
6. Horizontal Clearance - Maintain a minimum 5-foot horizontal separation between hedges and any structure. No part of a hedge or tree should overhang into Zone 0—the defensible space zone within 1 to 5 feet of a structure.
When a homeowner chooses a hedge over a low-maintenance landscape option, they have an ongoing obligation to maintain that vegetation properly. Chapter 30.80.110 – Landscaping Improvements – “landscaping shall be permanently maintained in a neat, attractive, and orderly manner”.
We appreciate your thorough and thoughtful review of why every hedge in Del Mar deserves equal attention to help mitigate risk in support of the City’s goals for fire safety, environmental quality, and neighborhood character.
Sincerely,
Janet Wilson & Nigel Hook
84 July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Adriana Jaramishian
To: Matt Bator
Subject: RE: 240 Dolphin Cove Ct/ Red Dot
From: Paul Cyr <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 9:04 AM
To: Planning Mail Box <[email protected]>
Subject: 240 Dolphin Cove Ct/ Red Dot
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.
In the interest of fairness and equity, we are in full support of the provision in the new tree/scenic ordinance requiring the owner of a tree impairing the view to share the trimming cost of that tree. This provision should be made retroactively. Thank you.
Paul Cyr | Principal | The Arizona Group
1125 E. Southern Avenue, Suite101 | Mesa, AZ 85204
P: (480) 633-6660 | F: (480) 892-7625 | Front Desk Service: (480) 892-8755 [email protected] | www.arizonagroup.com
Doing business in California as Arizona Professional Insurance Agency LLC, License OF30703
The Arizona Group is a member of United Agents of Arizona, LLC, and United Valley Insurance Services (California). Started in 1983, United Valley is an insurance network with over 80 agencies throughout California and Arizona, representing collectively over $900 million in written premium. We provide our members with access to more than 65insurance companies, providing a competitive edge with best-inclass insurance products, programs and services and superior company relationships.
Please note that any and all changes to your insurance policy (including binding coverage and canceling coverage) are not effective until confirmed by The Arizona Group.
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, or have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email and then delete it from your system. Any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken in reliance on this message is prohibited and may be unlawful
Item 2 85 July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Matt Bator
Subject: FW: Red Dot May 13 Planning Commission Meeting Item 2 (TSVS Amendments) From: Michael Deftos <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 6:23 AM
To: Planning Mail Box <[email protected]>; City Clerk Mail Box <[email protected]> Subject: Red Dot May 13 Planning Commission Meeting Item 2 (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.
Del Mar Planning Department,
Please include this Red Dot for the May 13th Planning Commission Meeting. I previously mistakenly sent it to [email protected] rather than [email protected]. Please only submit this one so as to not clutter the Red Dots with duplicate submissions. Thanks.
Del Mar Planning Commission,
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of City staff’s proposed new TSVS ordinance. However, I do not think such a drastic revision is the best approach. Instead, I advocate for more measured changes to the current ordinance, retaining its basic purpose and procedures. Enforcement of such an ordinance can achieve its stated purpose.
The purpose of Del Mar’s TSVS Ordinance is to “recognize the benefits provided by Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight and balance the goal of maintaining each of them, when possible.” The current ordinance balances this goal using subjective and objective criteria relating to the qualities of the tree and scenic view involved in the dispute (ignoring sunlight for this discussion) to help guide discretionary decision-making in determining whether the scenic view is unreasonably obstructed and what action should be taken to restore it.
Tiburon, San Francisco, and Clyde Hill have TSVS-type ordinances with similar purposes and decision-making processes (links provided below). To make Del Mar’s TSVS ordinance more objective, the proposed new ordinance replaces this subjective decision-making process with a mathematical calculation of the photographically documented degree of view obstruction and a broad classification of the type and extent of the obstructed view.
It is not clear how the proposed new ordinance will achieve the goal of balancing the benefits of trees and scenic views. In the current ordinance, the Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action is a list of beneficial qualities provided by trees that can justify limiting complete view restoration. In the proposed new ordinance, beneficial qualities of the subject tree are excluded from the calculation used to determine unreasonable view obstruction. If the new ordinance intends to completely restore unreasonably obstructed views (as I believe was stated by City staff, but is not clearly articulated in the ordinance language), what is the purpose of the Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action in the proposed new ordinance? Will the beneficial qualities of the subject tree be weighed into the final decision for a restorative action, such as potentially limiting the complete restoration of an unreasonably obstructed view? If not, the purpose of the Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action in the proposed new ordinance is not clear.
Item 2 86 July 7, 2025 Item 17
2 A goal of making the ordinance more objective is to reduce the number of legal challenges to the City’s final decisions. The need for this is not clear. Courts are generally very deferential to a city’s exercise of discretion in implementing local ordinances, including those that use subjective criteria to protect the aesthetic quality of the community (Breneric Associates v. City of Del Mar, 1998). The standard of “substantial evidence” to support such decisions is not difficult to meet (it's any evidence a reasonable person would accept). All legal challenges to Del Mar’s implementation of its current TSVS ordinance have failed. Tiburon’s similar TSVS-type ordinance was found to be a legitimate use of a city’s police power to protect the aesthetic quality of the community (Kucera v Lizza, 1997). San Francisco’s similar TSVS-type ordinance has been adjudicated by a superior court judge, and the decision survived appellate review (Kahn v Price, 2021). In contrast, the mathematical approach proposed by City staff has not been tested in Del Mar, by any other city, or in court.
Recent legal challenges to the City’s implementation of the TSVS ordinance have included challenges to the use of “documentable evidence” other than photographic evidence from the primary living area to either approve or deny view restoration. These legal challenges failed. Written witness testimony, photographs from neighboring properties, Google Street View photographs, and the expected growth rates of trees have been found by courts to be “substantial evidence” to support the City’s decision. The Tiburon, San Francisco, and Clyde Hill TSVS-type ordinances allow use of “documentable evidence” other than photographic evidence, explicitly allowing “photographs, written or expected oral testimony by the complainant and/or neighbors, and expert reports regarding the growth rate of the tree” or explicitly stating that evidence “is not limited to” photographs. Why abandon this tested standard of “documentable evidence”? Extending the lookback time window while limiting evidence to photographic evidence from the primary living area cuts both ways. The first will increase the extent of view restoration for those fortunate to have the required photographs, potentially reestablishing their view from 23+ years ago. The second will deny any view restoration to those without the required photographs, but with other documentable evidence of the prior view.
How this will balance out and affect the City’s “urban forest” is not known. (Reasonable arguments can be made on other grounds for reducing, maintaining or expanding the City’s urban forest canopy (fire hazard mitigation, aesthetics, etc), but mitigation of climate change is not a reasonable argument given the less than trivial amount of carbon stored in the City’s urban forest relative to the global carbon cycle and the carbon costs of maintaining trees in an urban environment, particularly in Southern California with its high carbon cost of imported water).
The proposed new ordinance grants priority consideration to City staff’s recommendation for a restorative action plan, stating “the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, shall first consider any recommendation(s) made by City staff, which could include recommendation(s) from a Certified Arborist retained by the Applicant, Tree Owner and/or City.” The current ordinance does not provide for any input or recommendation from City staff regarding any discretionary decision involved in the implementation of the ordinance. That seems wise to me. Instead of first considering a recommendation from City staff, the decisionmakers should first consider the recommendation made by the Applicant’s arborist submitted with the application material and any recommendation subsequently submitted by the Tree Owner, choosing the least intrusive alternative that restores the unreasonably obstructed view (completely, or to the degree deemed warranted when considering the beneficial qualities of the subject tree, depending on the intent of the proposed new ordinance).
Instead of developing a new TSVS ordinance model, the City should consider less drastic amendments to the current ordinance model, which has been tested by time, in multiple cities, through legal challenges, and through court-mediated adjudication. Make the cost allocation more equitable. Modestly extend the lookback time window, or fix it to 10 years prior to the date the new ordinance is adopted, giving notice to tree owners of the change in the City’s tree maintenance requirements. Formalize the process for adoption of a view restoration plan. Continue to perfect the hearing process. Relatedly, implement binding tree planting and maintenance requirements into the DRB process and separately consider hedge height restrictions.
Item 2 87 July 7, 2025 Item 17
3 Recent cases have demonstrated that the current TSVS ordinance, with its “subjective” decisionmaking process and evidentiary standard of “documentable evidence,” can result in substantial restoration of unreasonably obstructed views in a legally-defensible way. Continued enforcement of this ordinance, with relatively minor changes, can preserve scenic views and the aesthetic qualities of Del Mar homes for future generations.
The cost of implementing the TSVS ordinance, including defending against any further legal challenges, should be paid back over time by the maintenance of property values (and associated property tax revenue) through encouragement of neighborly tree maintenance, imposed restorative actions when warranted, and further development of a reputation as a city that values and will defend the primary scenic views of its residential properties against unreasonable obstruction by the planting, growth and/or inadequate maintenance of trees.
Thanks for your consideration,
Michael Deftos
PS:
1. Please clarify whether view restoration plans will “run with (the tree owner's) land" but not with the applicant’s land (except in cases of family inheritance of the applicant’s land).
2. Hedge height restrictions are a separate matter and should be carefully considered separately.
Links:
Tiburon TSVS Ordinance:
https://library.municode.com/ca/tiburon/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITIVLAIM US_CH15VISUOBTR San Francisco TSVS Ordinance:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_publicworks/0-0-0-4287 Clyde Hill TSVS Ordinance:
https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/ClydeHill/#!/ClydeHill17/ClydeHill1738.html#17.38 Breneric Associates v. City of Del Mar, 1998:
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/69/166.html Kucera v Lizza, 1997:
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/59/1141.html Kahn v Price, 2021:
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2021/a159536.html Item 2 88 July 7, 2025 Item 17
May 12, 2025
To: Matt Bator, Principal Planner and Planning Commission Members Re: Item #2–TSVS Amendments; May 13, 2025 Planning Commission Agenda Dear Matt, Chair Posner & Planning Commission Members:
We recently submitted a letter—signed by more than 50 Del Mar residents— spelling out our questions and concerns about the draft TSVS Ordinance Amendments presented to the Commission on April 8, 2025. We are hopeful that the questions posed will be answered by staff and discussed by the Commission at your May 13 meeting. We are writing now because we would like to submit some recommendations for the Commission’s consideration. In addition, we wanted to forward some photos taken of protected trees around town and to provide a more legible list of neighbors in support.
Our concerns relate primarily to how this revised ordinance will address the need to balance applicant’s rights to view restoration with the need to preserve our urban canopy for its carbon sequestration and other benefits, referenced in Guiding Principle #7. In addition, we are concerned that with tree owners being overtly incentivized to bypass the TSVS process due to its higher costs, they may not follow International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) standards if they are not required to.
We understand that the City—under Matt’s direction—will be working on a “Comprehensive Tree Policy and Regulatory Standards Update,” per the City’s 2025 Goals and Priorities Workshop. Since the list of preferred trees in the existing Tree Policy manual needs to be updated, we feel that including criteria for the removal of certain tree species should be suspended until the Tree Policy list is updated, along with regulatory standards.
Issue #1 - Unintended consequences of allowing trees to be trimmed without the involvement of a certified arborist. Please find attached, photos taken of protected trees— Torrey Pines and Monterey Cypress—primarily on private property, which clearly document the need for ISA standards. Also included is a photo of three Torrey Pines in the public right-of-way in front of L’Auberge Hotel, which were carefully pruned and laced out by an ISA-certified arborist at the request of the Del Mar Plaza owners. Why shouldn’t Del Mar make the effort to ensure that all tree trimming—especially protected trees and trees in the public right-of-way, where the City can exercise greater control—meets the same standards as trees in our downtown? Also of vital importance is the need for the City to seek best practices-guidance from the ISA on how best to prevent the spreading of the Fusarium circinatum fungus, which has already devastated the Torrey Pines Reserve.
Issue #2 - No requirement to replace trees that the Planning Commission or City Council orders to be removed. (23.51.080.6) If Guiding Principle #7 relative to the City’s Climate Action Plan is to be granted the weight it deserves, the ordinance should seek to avoid the removal of protected trees and mature trees. If—as a last resort—such trees must be removed, replacement trees should be required.
Issue #3 - The definition of Scenic View should preclude views created by illegal activity or natural disasters including downing, fire, and intentional removal due to applicable public nuisance criteria such as pathological or entomological infestations. (23.51.020.S) Item 2 89 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Issue #4 - “Protecting Scenic Views of the Community, its Landscapes and Urban Forest Character” are no longer considered a purpose of the ordinance (23.51.010.b) While we realize that TSVS applicants have consistently sought improved ocean views, it would be a mistake not to recognize the distinctive visual benefits of our urban forest and the significant role that large, mature tree species play as neighborhood character-defining trees. Attached is a photo taken from Del Mar’s North Beach, looking at the hillside, a lovely scenic view treasured by residents and visitors alike.
Issue #5 - The categorization of a species of tree as undesirable in the City’s out-of-date Tree Policy Manual should not be a consideration in determining restorative action— including removal. Neighborhood character-defining trees that sequester large amounts of carbon should be preserved. (23.51.070.l) A photo is included from a north hill neighborhood, depicting mature, neighborhood-character defining trees.
We appreciate your attention and consideration of these important issues.
Sincerely,
Richard & Dolores Davies Jamison Carol Kerridge
Crest Road El Amigo Road
Amy Isackson Dwight Worden
Pine Needles Drive Seaview Avenue
Beth Levine Ron Prater
Crest Road Zapo Street
John & Gail Graybill Carol Isackson
15th Street Pine Needles Drive
John & Mary Giebink Ron & Susan Taylor
Stratford Court Crest Road
Ann Feeney John Goodkind
Rimini Road Forest Way
Rosanne Holliday Sandy & Bram Dijkstra
Crest Road Rimini Road
Mary Friestedt Linda & Frank Chisari
Bellaire Street Crest Road
Anne Farrell Valerie Dufort & Sudeepto Roy
Via Alta Klish Avenue
Scott & Lisa Renner Pat Bone
Via Alta Culebra Street
Gloria Sandvik & Harold Feder Art Olson & Shirley King
Crest Road Avenida Primavera
Item 2 90 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Sheila & Michael Sharpe Judy & Marc Schuckit
15th Street Kalamath Street
Joan & Craig Brown Jason Dempsey
Crest Road Crest Road
Katherine Sohn Cathy & Shige Iwane
26th Street Pine Needles Drive
Tanya Schneiderman Penny & Buck Abell
Hoska Drive Serpentine Drive
Fran & Nick Frost Palmer & Susan Taylor
Crest Road Via Alta
Phil & Eric Gerber Doug & Janette Shelton
Pine Needles Drive Rimini Road
Nicole Gesher Carol & Alex Renner
Crest Road Via Alta
AARichard & Dolores Davies Jamison Carol Kerridge
Crest Road El Amigo Road
Amy Isackson Dwight Worden
Pine Needles Drive Seaview
Avenue
Beth Levine Ron Prater
Crest Road Street
John & Gail Graybill Carol Isackson
15th Street Pine Needles
John & Mary Gi Ron & Susan
Taylor
Stratford Court Crest
Road
Ann Feeney Pat Bone
Rimini Road
Item 2 91 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Roseanne Holliday Katherine Sohn
Crest Road 26th Street
Sandy & Bram Dijkstra Mary Friestedt
Rimini Road Bellaire Street
John Goodkind Doug & Janette Shelton
Forest Way Rimini Road
Valerie Dufort & Sudeepto Roy Linda & Frank
Chisari
Crest Ro
Gloria S Feder Anne Farrell
Crest Road Via Alta
Scott & Lisa Renner Art Olson & Shirley King
Via Alta Avenida
Primavera
Sheila & Michael Sharpe Jason Dempsey
15th Street Crest Road
Joan & Craig Brown Judy & Marc Schuckit
Crest Road Crest Road
Cathy & Pine Needles Drive Crest
Road
Penny & Buck Abell Tanya Schneiderman
Serpentine Drive Drive
Palmer & Susan Taylor Phi &
Eric Gerber
Via Alta Pine
Needles Drive
Item 2 92 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Item 2 93 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Item 2 94 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Item 2 95 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Item 2 96 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Item 2 97 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Item 2 98 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Item 2 99 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Item 2 100 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Item 2 101 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Item 2 102 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Item 2 103 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Item 2 104 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Item 2 105 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Item 2 106 July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Adriana Jaramishian
To: Matt Bator
Subject: RE: Red Dot New Tree Ordinance
From: Bill Ritman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 8:11 AM
To: Planning Mail Box <[email protected]>
Subject: Red Dot New Tree 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.
To Planning Commission:
We support the provision of the substitute tree and view ordinance that requires the owner of a tree blocking a view to share the cost of trimming it. We also want this rule to apply retroactively. This change would be fairer and encourage tree owners to be more careful in finding the best price for the trimming work.
Sincerely,
William J. Ritman
Lauren F. Ritman
288 Surfview Ct. (858) 736-6494
Item 2 107 July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Adriana Jaramishian
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Matt Bator
Subject: RE: Planning Commission Meeting 5/13/25 Item 2 From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 12:06 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box <[email protected]>
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting 5/13/25 Item 2
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 submit the below red-dot to the Planning Commission. Thank you.-Shirli Weiss Dear Planning Commission:
I am a long-time resident of Del Mar. I wish to thank the Planning Commission and the City Staff, especially Matt Bator, for undertaking the revisions to the Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight ordinance. I own a condominium at Del Mar Woods and went through the entire process of submitting an application under the current ordinance twice and also sought relief in court before I happily was able to have my view restored at 116 Spinnaker Ct.. I am aware that a number of people at Del Mar Woods have worked dating back to 2002 to try to have their views at least partially restored, which are largely blocked by the grove of trees on 110 Stratford Court by the Torrey Pacific Property.
Since I am unfortunately short of time today, and it is nearly noon, I will restrict my comments to the following:
1. I applaud the proposed changes to 23.51.090. I have believed it to always have been unfair for the party whose view has been unreasonably blocked by a tree owner to have to pay the cost of maintenance of the view after restoration. I hope that the Planning Commission adopts this provision’s changes. I would ask that the Commission consider making the ordinance apply to all future maintenance costs of views unreasonably blocked, not just apply to the applications filed after the changes.
2. I think the indemnification obligations contained in 23.51.130 should be deleted. If an applicant wins at the City level, but the tree owner appeals, and then sues, the applicant has to pick up the City’s litigation costs. This can run to hundreds of thousands and will discourage meritorious filings. The City should assume the burden of defending its decisions, not the applicant.
3. All hedges blocking ocean views should be lowered to fence height limitations. Existing higher hedges should not be grandfathered in, but they should be given a longer period of time to comply, perhaps tied to height, so that within 5 years all higher hedges are lowered to fence maximum height.
Other comments:
Thoughtful improvements are contained in the proposed amendments. Outside of this ordinance, however, I think the City has an interest on behalf of its residents to independently balance the desirability of ocean views for people who walk our streets with resident privacy and not depend on individuals willing to brave the application process to maintain overall ocean views of the City. A separate ordinance should be drafted that addresses this goal. I will submit more comments on this topic as the current ordinance (that addresses neighbor disputes) progresses.
Respectfully submitted,
Item 2 108 July 7, 2025 Item 17
2 Shirli Weiss
551 Stratford Ct;
116 Spinnaker Ct.
Del Mar, CA.
Item 2 109 July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Matt Bator
Subject: FW: Planning Commission Item #2 - Amendment to DMMC - Sunlight is Unique From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 9, 2025 2:46 PM
To: Planning Mail Box <[email protected]>
Cc: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>; Nigel Hook <[email protected]> Subject: Planning Commission Item #2 - Amendment to DMMC - Sunlight is Unique 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 Planning Commissioners,
Thank you for working the updates to Chapter 23.51 Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight.
Scenic Views and Sunlight Access are both affected by Trees, but each involves unique factors.
Unfortunately, discussions tend to focus overwhelmingly on Scenic Views. As a result, time is often exhausted on that topic, and Sunlight gets lumped into the Scenic View parameters, without receiving the focused consideration it deserves.
Section 23.51.020 Definitions
X. Sunlight shall mean the availability of direct and/or indirect sunlight to the PLA or to the existing Solar Energy System of an Applicant’s primary residence.
*** Primary Living Area (PLA) ***
Sunlight claims should not be confined to the Primary Living Area. Being forced to live in constant shade due to “privacy” trees and foliage that have been allowed to grow taller than a house not only poses a significant fire hazard but also severely diminishes the quality of life.
The loss of vital natural light undermines energy efficiency, degrades indoor air quality, and compromises overall environmental health. A prolonged absence of Sunlight also creates damp, shaded conditions that promote mold growth, thereby elevating health risks and increasing the potential for property damage. The hedge height limit may be the practical solution to this Sunlight issue, but it should apply to all hedges that impact a neighboring property, not just new hedges. A hedge of 6 to 8 feet is more than adequate to ensure privacy and reduce noise while still allowing Sunlight to reach neighboring properties.
*** Existing Solar Energy System ***
I firmly reject that Sunlight claims should apply solely to an “existing” solar energy system. The availability of viable locations for solar installations is inherently limited, and in many cases, the most effective placement for new systems may require adjustments to existing Tree management. Limiting Sunlight claims to only existing systems undermines the broader goal of promoting renewable energy adoption.
Item 2 110 July 7, 2025 Item 17
2 Sunlight is a critical factor in its own right and deserves dedicated attention—ideally through a separate ordinance that addresses its unique impacts and importance. At the very least, a Sunlight review process should be defined that ensures a fair and balanced approach to Tree management while taking into consideration access to Sunlight, including:
a) reviewing the placement of new solar energy systems, and b) requiring tree owners to demonstrate why excessive foliage blocking Sunlight on any part of a neighboring property is necessary.
Janet Wilson & Nigel Hook
635 Hoska Dr.
Del Mar, CA 92014
Item 2 111 July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Matt Bator
Subject: FW: Planning Commission Item #2 - Amendment to DMMC - Restorative Actions do "run with the land"
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 9, 2025 3:07 PM
To: Planning Mail Box <[email protected]>
Cc: Nigel Hook <[email protected]>; Janet Wilson <[email protected]> Subject: Planning Commission Item #2 - Amendment to DMMC - Restorative Actions do "run with the land" 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 Planning Commissioners.
Regarding 23.51.010
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 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.
A view is a valuable asset and a reason a home is desirable. I don't understand why ordered ongoing Tree maintenance, which supports a Scenic View and/or Sunlight, should be discontinued when the house is sold. The "bad" Tree Owner might stop maintaining the Trees, which would then force the new homeowner to file a TSVS, unnecessarily pitting neighbor against neighbor.
Maybe I am misunderstanding the purpose of this paragraph.
Thank you,
Janet Wilson
635 Hoska Dr.
Del Mar, CA 92014
Item 2 112 July 7, 2025 Item 17
1 Matt Bator
Subject: FW: Planning Commission Item #2 - Amendment to DMMC - Photographic Evidence Required
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 9, 2025 3:41 PM
To: Planning Mail Box <[email protected]>
Cc: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>; Nigel Hook <[email protected]> Subject: Planning Commission Item #2 - Amendment to DMMC - Photographic Evidence Required 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 Planning Commission,
Chapter 23.51 Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight - One of the many changes would require “photographic evidence” from inside the Primary Living Area. Without that photograph, a claim would not be accepted.
Currently, “documentable evidence” is accepted, including photographs, statements from neighbors, gardeners, and others.
While I agree that a photograph is often the strongest form of evidence, it should not be made an absolute requirement. There are circumstances in which a photo may not be available, yet the claim can still be credibly supported through other forms of documentation.
Furthermore, with the advent of AI and advanced image manipulation, photographs may no longer be entirely trustworthy.
A balanced approach that allows for alternative, verifiable documentation is both reasonable and necessary.
Janet Wilson
635 Hoska Dr.
Del Mar, CA 92014
Should "Photographic Evidence" be added to Chapter 30.04 Definitions? In the past, there has been reluctance to recognize Google Earth photographs as evidence. This has been taken into account here:
23.51.040(A)(1)
Applicant’s Certified Arborist may use other sources to obtain this information, such as photographs taken from other properties, satellite photographs from commercially available sources, and public permit information for work performed on the Tree Owner’s property.
Item 2 113 July 7, 2025 Item 17
May 13, 2025
Janet Wilson & Nigel Hook
635 Hoska Dr.
Del Mar, CA
RE: 30.86.090 Fences/Retaining Walls/Hedges
Dear Planning Commission,
While we fully support the regulation of hedges, we oppose the automatic grandfathering of existing hedges.
There are numerous valid reasons to regulate hedges:
1. Traffic Safety and Visibility: Tall hedges near intersections, driveways, or sidewalks obstruct the views of both drivers and pedestrians, thereby increasing the risk of accidents, especially since many streets in Del Mar lack sidewalks.
2. Fire Safety: California is prone to wildfires. Overgrown hedges and vegetation serve as fuel; therefore, height and maintenance regulations help reduce fire hazards.
3. Neighborhood Aesthetics and Uniformity: Zoning codes aim to maintain a consistent visual appearance in residential neighborhoods. Tall hedges might be seen as imposing or disruptive to the local character, and some streets in Del Mar feel like tunnels.
4. Light and Air Access: Very tall hedges block sunlight and airflow to neighboring properties, negatively impacting the quality of life and potentially reducing property value.
These impacts should not be ignored simply because a hedge has been in place for some time.
Del Mar is a mature city with numerous established hedges—many of which would exceed the proposed height limits. While hedges can provide valuable privacy—typically achievable at heights of 6 to 8 feet—they can also create problems when overgrown. Tall or poorly maintained hedges have been known to cause safety hazards, block public views, and reduce sunlight to neighboring properties.
Existing hedges should not be automatically exempted based on their age or planting date. Instead, they should be evaluated based on their actual impacts—automatic grandfathering would allow problems to continue indefinitely.
Unlike permanent structures, hedges are not fixed; they can be trimmed, replaced, or replanted at relatively low cost. For that reason, automatic grandfathering of vegetation is unnecessary and runs counter to the City’s goals for fire safety, environmental quality, and neighborhood character.
To find a balanced solution, I support the creation of a Hedge Review Process—keeping in mind that a process will be required for new hedges—modeled after the one used in Laguna Beach where exceptions might be granted only if the hedge does not pose a fire risk, create a safety hazard, or obstruct sunlight or public views.
The burden should be on the hedge owner to justify an exception and demonstrate that their hedge does not present risks or negatively affect neighboring properties.
A case-by-case review process enables more equitable and context-sensitive decisions that consider individual circumstances while prioritizing public safety, neighborhood quality, and the City’s long-term planning objectives.
Item 2 114 July 7, 2025 Item 17
We are especially concerned about fire safety—the Palisades and Eaton fires were truly frightening and eyeopening.
At the April 24 City Council meeting, Chief Josh Gordon presented the newly updated CAL FIRE map showing Del Mar’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones (www.delmar.ca.us/920/Fire-Hazard-Severity-Zone-Map-Updates).
The majority of Del Mar is now classified as "High" or "Very High".
Now is the time to strengthen fire safety standards for both fences and hedges.
With Section 30.86.090 being updated to include hedges, this is a timely opportunity to address both fences and hedges as potential fire hazards. When hedges burn, they release embers that can ignite nearby vegetation or structures, and like wooden fences, they can act as pathways for fire to spread.
1. New fences should be constructed using fire-retardant materials to reduce the risk of ignition and help protect adjacent structures.
2. New hedges should consist of fire-resistant plant varieties.
3. All hedges should be maintained with a width proportional to their height and should not exceed 3 feet in width. Dead material must be removed.
4. Ember Traps - Tall, dense hedges trap wind-blown embers, significantly increasing the risk of ignition and fire spread.
5. Vertical Clearance - The space between the lowest tree branch and the top of any hedge should be at least three times the height of the hedge, per CAL FIRE guidelines (fire.ca.gov/dspace). This clearance should apply to patio covers and overhangs above hedges.
6. Horizontal Clearance - Maintain a minimum 5-foot horizontal separation between hedges and any structure. No part of a hedge or tree should overhang into Zone 0—the defensible space zone within 1 to 5 feet of a structure.
When a homeowner chooses a hedge over a low-maintenance landscape option, they have an ongoing obligation to maintain that vegetation properly. Chapter 30.80.110 – Landscaping Improvements – “landscaping shall be permanently maintained in a neat, attractive, and orderly manner”.
We appreciate your thorough and thoughtful review of why every hedge in Del Mar deserves equal attention to help mitigate risk in support of the City’s goals for fire safety, environmental quality, and neighborhood character.
Sincerely,
Janet Wilson & Nigel Hook
Item 2 115 July 7, 2025 Item 17
ATTACHMENT F
116 July 7, 2025 Item 17
117 July 7, 2025 Item 17
118 July 7, 2025 Item 17
119 July 7, 2025 Item 17
120 July 7, 2025 Item 17
121 July 7, 2025 Item 17
122 July 7, 2025 Item 17
123 July 7, 2025 Item 17
124 July 7, 2025 Item 17
125 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Note: Underlined Text is “Proposed.” Strikethrough Text would be “Deleted.”
23.50.050 - Exemptions.
A. No permit is required by this Chapter for pruning or trimming of any tree on private property.
B. No permit is required by this Chapter to cut down, remove, destroy, or move a Protected Tree under any of the following circumstances. This exemption does not apply to trees within the public right-of-way.
1. When measured two feet above ground level, (a) the Protected Tree has a single trunk circumference of 20 inches or less and is not a replacement tree pursuant to Section
23.50.090, or (b) the Protected Tree has multi-trunks having a total circumference of 30 inches or less and is not a replacement tree pursuant to Section 23.50.090.
2. When measured two feet above ground level, the trunk of the Protected Tree is located no more than 12 feet from the exterior wall of any Primary Structure or Accessory Structure.
3. When both trees are measured two feet above ground level, the Protected Tree is located no more than 12 feet from another Protected Tree. Only one of the Protected Trees may be removed.
C. No permit is required by this Chapter for the emergency removal of a Protected Tree for reasons of public health, safety and welfare. The Planning and Community Development Department shall be promptly notified of emergency removal.
D. No permit is required by this Chapter to remove a Protected Tree when the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal has determined by resolution that removal of the Tree is necessary to restore a scenic view and/or sunlight to a property pursuant to the provisions of DMMC Chapter
23.51. (Ord. No. 749)
23.50.080 - Processing of Permits; Standards for Permits.
A. Application. A person who desires to cut down, remove, destroy, or move a Protected Tree shall make application for a Tree Removal Permit to the Planning and Community Development Department on a form provided by the City. A processing fee, established by resolution of the City Council, shall be required. The application shall contain the number, species, and size of the trees involved, a statement on the reason for the requested action, a site plan depicting the location of tree(s) proposed for removal and other trees located in the vicinity, and any other pertinent information determined necessary by the Planning and Community Development Director or Design Review Board. This additional information may include a report from a
ATTACHMENT G
126 July 7, 2025 Item 17
qualified, professional arborist selected and employed by the City. The applicant shall be required to reimburse the City for the cost of such a report.
B. Noticing. A notice of the filing of an application for a Tree Removal Permit shall be mailed by the City to persons owning property adjacent to the project site. The mailed notice of application shall advise persons of the date of action and that the application is available for public review at City Hall.
.
Action. The Director or the Design Review Board shall approve or conditionally approve a Tree Removal Permit if the Protected Tree is:
1. Dead, diseased or injured beyond reclamation, as certified by a tree condition report from an arborist;
2. Crowded by other healthier protected trees; thinning (removal) would promote healthier growth in the trees to remain, as certified by a tree condition report from an arborist;
3. Interfering with existing utilities and/or primary structures, as certified by a report from the public utility operator or a structural engineer;
4. Causing substantial damage to a Primary or Accessory Structure or associated utilities, as certified by a structural engineer when applicable;
5. Interfering with existing improvements, and/or is a danger to the public health, safety, or welfare in the Central Commercial, Open Space Overlay Zone, or on public property or rightof-way;
6. Deemed a safety hazard in a tree condition report from a Certified Arborist. The report shall include a completed ISA-Hazard Evaluation Form or other methodology acceptable to the City of Del Mar, as well as the observations and opinions of the Arborist. The City reserves the right to retain a Certified Arborist, at the expense of the Applicant, when needed to review a hazardous tree determination;
7. Deemed by the Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight Board to be unreasonably blocking a scenic view and/or sunlight of a neighboring residence and the Board has determined that removal of the tree is the only feasible method available for restoration of the affected scenic view and/or sunlight;
8. Located within 30 feet of a Primary or Accessory Structure, when measured two feet above ground level, and the canopy of the tree cannot be reduced so as to:
(i) Avoid overhanging the roof of a Primary or Accessory Structure; (ii) Be at least ten feet from the canopy of any other tree; and (iii) Be at least ten feet from the chimney of any residence. 127 July 7, 2025 Item 17
The feasibility of reducing the tree(s) canopy shall be determined by the City's Arborist and Fire Chief;
9. Voluntarily replaced in accordance with Subsection 23.50.090.A.1. The replacement tree(s) shall be indicated in a covenant on the property on which the tree(s) are located. The replacement tree(s) shall not be eligible for removal in accordance with this Code until it has attained a circumference of at least 20 inches when measured two feet above ground level; or
10. 128 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Obstructing proposed improvements that cannot be reasonably designed to avoid the need for tree removal, as certified by a report from the project planner and determined by the Director of Planning and Community Development or the Design Review Board based on the following factors:
(i) Early consultation with the City;
(ii) Consideration of practical design alternatives;
(iii) Saving the Protected Tree eliminates all reasonable use of the property; or (iv) Saving the Protected Tree requires the removal of more desirable trees.
Notwithstanding the existence of Subsections 1. through 10. above, the Director or the Design Review Board may deny a Tree Removal Permit if any of the following conditions exist:
1. The tree removal will, even after the imposition of permit conditions, endanger the public health, safety, peace, or welfare;
2. The tree removal will have an adverse impact on the aesthetics of the area surrounding the proposed activity;
3. Reasonable alternatives to a concurrent development proposal exist which would eliminate the need to remove a Protected Tree; or
4. The applicant has not agreed to perform the conditions of approval imposed by Section
23.050.090.
(Ord. No. 729; Ord. No. 749)
129 July 7, 2025 Item 17
Created: 2025-01-28 12:40:56 [EST]
(Supp. No. 9)