Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda
Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
October 6, 2025 City Council Meeting
INFORMATION RECEIVED
AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA
WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)
1 Leslie Carrillo
-----Original Message-----
From: Juliana Maxey-Allison <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2025 12:07 PM
To: Terry TG. Gaasterland <[email protected]>; Tracy MarƟnez <tmarƟ[email protected]>; Dan Quirk <[email protected]>; John Spelich <[email protected]>; Ashley Jones <[email protected]> Subject: Red Dot re October 6, 2025 City Council meeƟng CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
October 6, 2025 Item 8
To Mayor Gaasterland, Deputy Mayor Martinez, City Council Members Quirk and Spelich, City Manager Jones
Red Dot
Re: Introduction of an Ordinance to Amend Municipal Code Chapters
23.50 and 23.51 related to Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight regulations (A25-001)
TREE VS VIEW=TRIM
Julie Maxey-Allison
10 Street
As Del Mar evolves into a town of troubled neighbor negotiations regarding existing trees, it is time to stress the key importance of the interconnectedness of trees to our ecosystem and our health. Of course a sick or dangerous tree should be taken out. But most are not.
To accommodate concerns about views and light trees can be artfully trimmed rather than removed. Left alive, trees will continue to contribute to our well being adding their beauty to landscape of our city, providing needed shade, sequestering carbon into their roots aiding in combatting the effects of climate change as we heat up now and in the coming years.
.
October 6, 2025 Item 8
1 Robert Silva
From: Michael Deftos <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2025 7:50 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Item Item 8 TSVS Amendments October 6, 2025 City Council meeting Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Del Mar City Council,
The following are some issues with the proposed new TSVS ordinance, many of which could be disadvantageous to Applicants seeking view restoration. I respectfully suggest some revisions to address these concerns.
1. The proposed new TSVS ordinance requires photographic evidence of the prior view taken from the PLA to establish the existence of the prior view, rather than allowing consideration of other documentable evidence, as the current ordinance does. This could limit the ability of applicants to restore their scenic view. Reasoned consideration of other documentable evidence can establish the existence and extent of a prior view. For example, consideration of a Google Street View image that fortuitously captures the primary scenic view or clearly documents the prior height and extent of the offending vegetation can establish the existence of a prior view. Other jurisdictions do not limit the evidence to photographic evidence from the PLA. 2 The proposed new TSVS ordinance codifies a permissible amount of view obstruction rather than allowing the unreasonableness of view obstruction to be determined using discretion on a case-by-case basis. When an adjacent property is developed, the new ordinance would effectively double the amount of view that can be taken (first by the structure, then by subsequent planting and/or growth of landscaping). In contrast, under the current ordinance, any degree of view obstruction subsequently taken by the landscaping could be deemed unreasonable. The new ordinance would limit the ability to seek view restoration early, before the threshold of allowed view obstruction has been exceeded, and when less drastic measures could restore and preserve the view. The application of photographs to the table could also frequently be less than objective due to issues such as perspective and multiple scenic view vantage points from the PLA, which might not have precisely corresponding historical photographs.
The balancing of the burdens and benefits of trees and scenic views is inherently subjective and should not be reduced to a table. The application of a blend of objective and subjective criteria to the determination of unreasonable view obstruction, as is done by the current ordinance, can achieve the balancing goal. No other jurisdiction uses the new approach being proposed.
If the city is intent on the proposed new methodology, consider adding language to indicate that this method for determining unreasonable view obstruction is encouraged but not required, and that other documentable evidence of the prior view can be considered.
In addition, I respectfully believe the subjective balancing of the burdens and benefits of trees and scenic views should be done by the planning commission or city council, without influence from city staff. Consider eliminating the allowance for a recommended restorative action plan from city staff and instead have the decision makers choose between recommendations for restorative actions from the Applicant’s and Tree Owner’s arborists. The time and resources city staff spend on TSVS cases could be October 6, 2025 Item 8
2 substantially reduced if their role were restricted to organizing the evidence and argument presented by the Applicant and Tree Owner and explaining the decision-making process to the decision-makers.
3. The proposed new TSVS ordinance does not explicitly state that the restorative action should completely restore the view to the reasonableness standard established by the table. This could result in the unsettling outcome for an Applicant of a finding of unreasonable view obstruction, but a restorative action plan that results in only limited view restoration. Relatedly, the purpose of the Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action (23.51.070) in the proposed new ordinance is not clear. For example, could the status of the subject tree as a protected tree or its subjective value to the community/neighborhood be used to justify limiting view restoration to something less than indicated by the reasonableness standard established by the table? Consider explicitly stating that the intent is to restore the view to the reasonableness standard and clarifying the intended use of the Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action.
5. The proposed new TSVS ordinance increases the cost to the Applicant by requiring them to pay for, in addition to the cost of the Application, a Tree Survey (before a finding of unreasonable view obstruction has been made) (23.51.040 (A)(1)(f)), the costs associated with the public noticing requirement ((23.51.090 (A)) and the costs of any other information requested by the city ((23.51.090 (A)).
6. The Tree Survey, particularly the requirement for a Desired Restorative Action ((23.51.040(1)(f)6)), could bias the decision-making on whether the view is unreasonably obstructed if strictly objective criteria for determining unreasonable view obstruction are not adhered to. For example, if removal of a protected tree is requested or deemed by an arborist to be necessary to restore the view, this could bias the decision-maker against a determination of unreasonable view obstruction. In the current ordinance, such a Tree Survey is not required, and the restorative action necessary to restore the view is not one of the factors for determining whether the view is unreasonably obstructed. Consider eliminating the requirement for a Tree Survey to be submitted by the applicant.
7. While the indemnification clause has been removed, there remains a requirement for a Uniform Development Application, which was not previously required (23.51.040 (A)(1)(a)). The city’s Uniform Development Application contains similar indemnification language. In addition, the language in section
23.51.120 seems to be intended to indemnify the city (the purpose of this section is not clear to me). This raises the possibility that, for example, a successful Applicant could be required to defend in court the city’s final decision in their favor in a legal challenge mounted by the Tree Owner. Concern regarding this was clearly articulated by a thoughtful resident in an earlier hearing. What is the reason for a Uniform Development Application (with its indemnification clause)? The TSVS Application could presumably be designed to provide all necessary information (without an indemnification clause). Similarly, what is the purpose of section
23.51.120? Consider eliminating the requirement for a Uniform Development Application and section
23.51.120.
8. The language in section 23.51.010(B)(3) regarding whether the decision runs with the land is unclear. Which “subsequent property owners” is the following intended to refer to: the tree owner, the applicant, or both? “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.” If ownership of the tree owner's property changes, can the new property owner be required to continue with the ongoing maintenance requirements? What if this property is inherited? Or is this paragraph intended to only refer to the Applicant as a property owner?
I agree with Janet Wilson and suggest adding language that the final decision either should or may be made to run with both the tree owner’s and applicant’s land, and that this be officially recorded.
9. In the case where an Applicant inherits a property, then seeks view restoration, does the lookback time window extend to before they inherited the property (up to 10 years), or only to the date they inherited (acquired) the property? Consider clarifying the rights of an owner who inherits their property to seek restoration of their family's prior view.
October 6, 2025 Item 8
3 10. The exclusion from protection of views created by “natural disaster/causes such as storms, fire, disease or pest infestation” (23.51.020 (S)) should be reconsidered. Protection of such naturally created views would help balance out views lost throughout the city due to the natural process of tree growth where view restoration is not sought, not granted, or cannot be granted due to the offending vegetation being located >300 ft from the site of the view. Consider allowing the protection of such naturally created scenic views.
11. Consider fixing the lookback window to the date of adoption of the new ordinance. This is a reasonable compromise between keeping it at 10 years versus extending it to when the current ordinance was adopted 23 years ago.
12. The definition of Scenic View (23.51.020 (S)) unnecessarily restricts scenic "backcountry" vistas to being eastward. Properties on the south end of the city have excellent scenic vistas southwards of the distant hillside of the Torrey Pines State Natural Reserve that warrant protection. Scenic vistas toward the north from the northern hillside of the city should similarly be protected. Consider changing the language to allow protection of all "scenic vistas" or "distant scenic vistas" not just those of the "backcountry" to the east.
12. Typo: Section 23.51.060 (5) still references photographic evidence from “August 1, 2002.”
13. Janet Wilson astutely points out many nuances to the protection of access to sunlight. Perhaps this should be considered in a separate ordinance, as is wisely being done for hedge height restrictions.
In sum, I think the current ordinance is superior to the proposed new ordinance, including its evidentiary standard and largely subjective process for determining unreasonably view obstruction. If the proposed new paradigm is preferred, please consider the suggested changes above.
Thanks for your consideration,
Michael Deftos
October 6, 2025 Item 8
1 Robert Silva
From: janice batter <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 1:07 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Letter concerning Changes to 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.
Council Members,
We object to the changes proposed to the existing Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight ordinance. #3 is ridiculous since potted plants are by nature non-permanent and can be moved, besides usually being rather short.
#4 is unimaginable since we all live on such small lots, houses often 10’ apart, and any tree over 8’ will cause a shallow at some point during the day to carry across that distance. What would Del Mar look and feel like without its trees. Please consider all our privacy which is so dependent on our vegetation and, yes, our trees.
#5 We assume this is now retroactive to any tree which isn’t “protected"…like the enormous trees at the top of 9th Street. Those tree most certainly cast shallows on someone’s house. And they are magnificent.
Please do not pass this ordinance. Do not even consider any of it.
This is going to be a legal nightmare for Del Mar.
Janice and Michael Batter
October 6, 2025 Item 8
1 Robert Silva
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 2:14 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Dan Quirk; Terry TG. Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; John Spelich Cc: Janet Wilson
Subject: Item 8 City Council - Concerns Regarding “Run with the Land” Language Attachments: RunWithTheLand_Research.xlsx
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Councilmembers,
One of the proposed changes to the TSVS Ordinance explicitly prevents a TSVS decision from running with the land (unless inherited). PROPOSED 23.51.010(B)(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. 1 - Inheritance Exception
The Scenic View and/or Sunlight doesn’t change when ownership changes, so why should the associated decision change? Linking rights to how a property is transferred (sold vs inherited) is inconsistent. Not one of the other 27 comparison cities includes an exception based on inheritance. 2 - Complete Reversal of Existing Ordinance
There are two references that clearly state a decision/restorative action may run with the land. CURRENT:
23.51.040(A)
The Conditions of Restorative Action and required term of maintenance (if deemed appropriate) imposed by the Planning Commission may be recorded in a covenant against the deed for the property on which the Subject Tree is located. If required, the covenant shall run with the land to help guarantee permanent preservation of pre-existing Scenic Views and/or Sunlight.
23.51.070 Hierarchy of Restorative Actions
1. Restorative Action may include additional written conditions (including ongoing maintenance), and directions as to appropriate timing of such actions, and may be made to run with the land and apply to successors in interest.
Why should the existing "run with the land" provision be reversed? 3 - Unreasonable Burden
Requiring a new owner to restart a process that was already resolved is unnecessary, burdensome, and may undermine the integrity of the original decision.
October 6, 2025 Item 8
2 4 - Comparable Cities (see attached)
Reversing our current policy would put Del Mar out of step with the majority of comparable cities.
And should an inheritance exception be included, Del Mar would stand alone as the only city with such a clause.
In total,
81% of comparable cities either affirmatively or implicitly allow view decisions to run with the land. 0% of comparable cities have excepts based on inheritance Comparison Snapshot
Only 5 cities explicitly state that view decisions do not run with the land. 11 cities (including Del Mar’s current ordinance) state they may run with the land. The other 12 cities from the Jurisdictional View Ordinance Comparison Chart are silent, which typically implies the default legal assumption: that decisions tied to the land bind future owners.
My research can be verified using the attached spreadsheet with direct links to the relevant ordinances.
Thank you,
Janet Wilson
Running with the Land - Comparable Cities:
Alameda County C. Restorative action may include written conditions (including ongoing maintenance), and directions as to appropriate timing of such actions, and may be made to run with the land and apply to successors in interest.
Belvedere Access to a view or sunlight does not run with the land as an easement.
Beverly Hills
10-8-107: DECISIONS INTENDED TO RUN WITH THE LAND; DISCLOSURE:
Decisions regarding view restoration shall be binding on all current and future owners of view owner's property and foliage owner's property, and such decisions must be disclosed by each owner to subsequent owners of the property.
Clyde Hill WA
The hearing examiner may direct that the work prescribed pursuant to CHMC 17.38.070 be continuously maintained and that the examiner’s decision may be binding upon future owners and run with the land, in which case the city shall record the examiner’s decision with the King County recording office and shall be reimbursed by the complainant.
Culver City
C. Restoration action may include written conditions (including ongoing maintenance) and directions as to appropriate timing of such actions, as well as recordation of an agreement containing covenants or other documentation to memorialize the conditions and make them applicable.
Del Mar A. Restorative Action may include additional written conditions (including ongoing maintenance), and directions as to appropriate timing of such actions, and may be made to run with the land and apply to successors in interest.
El Cerrito 10. Restorative action may include written conditions concerning ongoing maintenance and should be recorded, made to run with the land and apply to successors in interest.
Laguna Beach
§ 12.16.100 View decisions binding on future owners—Disclosure obligations.
Decisions made by city staff and the view restoration committee regarding view restoration and view preservation run with the land and shall be binding on the claimant and the vegetation owner and their heirs, successors and assigns. Such decisions, to the extent permitted, shall be recorded in the official records of the county of Orange. In addition, such decisions shall be set forth in any real property report required by Chapter 14.76 and should be disclosed by each owner to prospective purchasers of their properties.
Malibu Restorative action may be made to run with the land and apply to successors in interest.
Orinda D. Restorative action may include written conditions (including ongoing maintenance) and directions as to timing for taking appropriate actions and may be made to run with the land and apply to successors in interest.
Rolling Hills Estates
It is also not the intent or purpose of this chapter for the city to create either a covenant running with the land (for example, CC&Rs or deed restriction) or an equitable servitude (for example, easement or license). However, the city will keep a record of agreements and decisions reached pursuant to Sections 17.55.070, 17.55.080, 17.55.090 and
17.55.110 of which it is notified, and provide those agreements and/or decisions as part of the pre-purchase inspection report it provides to prospective purchasers of property in the city who request such a report.
Santa Barbara Not a Covenant or Servitude. It is not the intent and purpose of this chapter for the City to create either a covenant running with the land or an equitable servitude.
October 6, 2025 Item 8
3 Tiburon (c) Restorative action may include written conditions (including ongoing maintenance), and directions as to appropriate timing of such actions, and may be made to run with the land and apply to successors in interest.
Torrance
Nor is it the intent or purpose of this Article for the City to create either a covenant running with the land (for example, CC&Rs or deed restriction) or an equitable servitude (for example, easement or license). However, the City will keep a record of agreements and decisions reached pursuant to Sections 92.41.100, 92.41.110, and 92.41.120 of which it is notified, and provide those agreements and/or decisions to those who request such a report.
Ventura County E. Not a Covenant or Servitude. It is not the intent and purpose of this Chapter for the City to create either a covenant running with the land or an equitable servitude.
Westlake Village
C. Restorative action may include written conditions (including ongoing maintenance) and directions as to appropriate timing of the required conduct. Restorative action may be made to run with the land and apply to successors in interest.
October 6, 2025 Item 8
1 Robert Silva
From: janice batter <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 2:23 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: REVISED: Red Dot Letter concerning Changes to Tree Ordinance Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Council Members,
We object to the changes proposed to the existing Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight ordinance. #3 is ridiculous since potted plants are by nature non-permanent and can be moved, besides usually being rather short.
#4 is unimaginable since we all live on such small lots, houses often 10’ apart, and any tree over 8’ will cause a shadow at some point during the day to carry across that distance. What would Del Mar look and feel like without its trees. Please consider all our privacy which is so dependent on our vegetation and, yes, our trees.
#5 We assume this is now retroactive to any tree which isn’t “protected"…like the enormous trees at the top of 9th Street. Those trees most certainly cast shadows on someone’s house. And they are magnificent.
Please do not pass this ordinance. Do not even consider any of it.
This is going to be a legal nightmare for Del Mar.
Janice and Michael Batter
October 6, 2025 Item 8
1 Robert Silva
From: Jonathan Polikoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 2:32 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Patti P
Subject: Red Dot Letter (email)
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Comment concerning discussion of new tree ordinance at the upcoming Council Meeting (Oct 6).
I support measures to make it easier for the residents of Del Mar to remove protected trees.
We need to acknowledge the new realities of climate change - increased frequency of weather events that lead to conflagrations such as occurred in Pacific Palisades and Altadena.
I see Del Mar as being vulnerable to a similar event.
I am generally supportive of the changes outlined in the amended ordinance however I would go further and not require removed protected trees to be replaced.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jonathan Polikoff
640 Nob Ave. Del Mar
October 6, 2025 Item 8
1 Robert Silva
From: Alice McNally <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 4:11 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: RED DOT Re: Introduction of an Ordinance to Amend Municipal Code Chapters 23.50 and 23/51 related to Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight regulations )A23-001 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.
Mayor Gaasterland Deputy Mayor Tracy Martinez council members Dan Quirk and John Spelich and City Manager Ashley Jones,
I am a 1943 native of Del Mar, and so lucky to have grown up on tree lined Stratford Ct. We even had a Woods, full of eucalyptus trees, just South of 4th street.
Our trees are what make Del Mar, Del Mar.
Trees Combat Climate change!
. Trees remove climate warming carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. . Regulate Temperature
. Reduce Air Pollution
. Tree roots and canopies help slow water runoff, prevent erosion, improve water infiltration into the soil adding to water conservation and reducing flood risk.
. Reduce wind, noise and pollution from the train, and cars going through town.
I have a many Torrey Pines, a eucalyptus, and Italian Stone pine and several Cyprus in my yard, which keeps my house and yard at least 10 degrees cooler and comfortable, eliminating the need for an air conditioner.
On a hot day, do you choose to stand in the sun, or under the shade of a tree? Thank you,
Alice McNally
1332 Stratford Ct.
Del Mar, CA 92014
858-342-3244
October 6, 2025 Item 8