Del Mar City Council
October 20, 2025

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

The 60% SDG&E design for Stratford Court North has undergone formal design review by staff and the consultant team and is nearing completion. Staff and the consultant team are also working on environmental review, extensive homeowner outreach, obtaining permit-to-enter forms, and the City civil and telecommunications design. Completion of upcoming preconstruction and bidding activities following the formal design review will cumulatively take approximately 10-15 months. Construction is currently anticipated in Fiscal Year 2027, contingent upon the City receiving the necessary easements and permit-to-enter forms from property owners. The City’s construction duration is estimated at 6 months, with the full project timeline to pole removals estimated at 11 months.

The City’s Undergrounding Program necessitates coordination with the utility companies: San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), AT&T, Charter Communications/Spectrum, and Crown Castle.

The design process involves extensive coordination with each of these four companies. In fact, the City contractor’s work involves constructing the Underground Support Structure (USS) for their infrastructure, which includes underground conduit and structures for the installation of their equipment.

In particular, AT&T’s involvement is governed by CPUC tariff rules, specifically Rule 32. The Stratford Court North project qualifies under CPUC Rule 32.A.2, which places responsibility on the City to construct the USS and to pay AT&T for designing and inspecting the USS. This action seeks Council authorization to pay AT&T $78,100.50 for these design and inspection services related to Stratford Court North. Approval of this item will enable AT&T to begin its design process, which is a critical path activity for the project. The proposed payment to AT&T is within the last approved project budget presented to Council on September 22, 2025, which included $97,825 for AT&T.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item. Council approval of the recommended action will result in execution of the AT&T Agreement and payment of $78,100.50 to AT&T for Stratford Court North (Attachment A). There are sufficient funds available in the adopted Fiscal Year 2025-26 Capital Budget to cover the cost of the Agreement.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The proposed City Council action does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in 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, therefore, not subject to CEQA. No further action under CEQA is required.

NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

Utility Undergrounding is listed as a Tier 1 City Council priority for Fiscal Year 2025-2026.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A - AT&T Aerial to Underground Conversion Agreement Attachment B - Citywide Map of Undergrounding Districts Attachment C - UUD 1B Stratford Court North Map
2 October 20, 2025 Item 12
324596 (Rev. 3/15/2011)
Aerial to Underground Conversion
Construction Agreement

AERIAL TO UNDERGROUND CONVERSION AGREEMENT
(APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT USS)
(RULE 32.A.2)

BETWEEN

CITY OF DEL MAR
and

PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY

DBA AT&T CALIFORNIA
RE

STRATFORD CT

PACIFIC LN

LOIS LN

OCEAN AVE
13TH ST
14TH ST
15TH ST
3 October 20, 2025 Item 12
324596 (Rev. 3/15/2011)
Aerial to Underground Conversion
Construction Agreement

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. DEFINITIONS. ..................................................................................................................1 II. RECITALS. ........................................................................................................................1 III. SPECIFIC PROVISIONS. ................................................................................................2 A. Tariff. .......................................................................................................................2 B. Construction. ............................................................................................................2 C. Term. ........................................................................................................................3 D. Title. .........................................................................................................................3 E. Tax Liability.............................................................................................................3 F. Payment....................................................................................................................4 G. Cancellation, Modification or Deferment. ...............................................................4 H. Indemnity, Limitation of Liability. ..........................................................................4 I. Insurance. .................................................................................................................5 J. Warranty. .................................................................................................................8 K. Liens. ........................................................................................................................9 L. Licenses and Easements. ..........................................................................................9 M. Performance. ............................................................................................................9 N. Damage to Facilities. ...............................................................................................9 O. Schedule of Work. ...................................................................................................9 P. Force Majeure. .......................................................................................................10 Q. Compliance With Laws..........................................................................................10 IV. GENERAL PROVISIONS. .............................................................................................10 A. Assignment. ...........................................................................................................10 B. Binding Effect. .......................................................................................................10 C. Termination. ...........................................................................................................10 D. Attorneys’ Fees. .....................................................................................................11 E. Entire Agreement. ..................................................................................................11 4 October 20, 2025 Item 12
324596 (Rev. 3/15/2011)
Aerial to Underground Conversion
Construction Agreement
F. Independent Contractor. .........................................................................................11 G. Jurisdiction. ............................................................................................................11 H. Notices. ..................................................................................................................11 I. Waiver and Amendment. .......................................................................................12 Exhibit A Applicant’s Approved Street Improvement Plans Exhibit B AT&T’s Estimated Costs
Exhibit C Executive Orders and Associated Regulations
5 October 20, 2025 Item 12
324596 (Rev. 3/15/2011)
Aerial to Underground Conversion
Construction Agreement

THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is between CITY OF DEL MAR, a CALIFORNIA Municipal corporation (“Applicant”), and PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, a California corporation doing business as AT&T CALIFORNIA (“AT&T”) (collectively the “Parties”).

I. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this Agreement, the following terms apply:

A. The term “Tariff” refers to Schedule Cal. P.U.C. No. A2, Rule 32.A.2.

B. The terms “Underground Supporting Structure” and “USS” include, but are not limited to, conduit, inner duct, manholes, service boxes, and related equipment.

C. The terms “Trench” and “Trenching” include, but are not limited to, excavating, backfilling, compacting, and, as necessary, breaking and replacing pavement, sidewalks, driveways, curbs and gutters, and restoring all other surface features disturbed by underground construction including landscaping, plus the cost of performing such work.

D. The term “Hazardous Substance” refers to any substance, material or chemical that is or becomes regulated under applicable local, state, or federal law, regulation, or ordinance.

E. The term “District” refers to the area in/on/along Stratford Ct, Pacific Ln, Lois Ln, Ocean Ave, 13th St, 14th St, and 15th St within the City of Del Mar, where the undergrounding of existing aerial facilities is to take place.

F. The term “Project” means all of the work required to underground existing aerial facilities within the District.

G. The term “CPUC” refers to the California Public Utilities Commission.

II. RECITALS.

A. Applicant has asked AT&T to replace its existing aerial communication facilities with underground communication facilities within the District.

B. AT&T is willing to underground its existing aerial communication facilities within the District, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

In consideration of the above, the Parties agree as follows:
6 October 20, 2025 Item 12
324596 (Rev. 3/15/2011)
Aerial to Underground Conversion
Construction Agreement

III. SPECIFIC PROVISIONS.

A. Tariff.

The Project will be conducted in accordance with the Tariff.

B. Construction.

1. Upon receipt of a copy of this Agreement that has been executed by Applicant and the advance payment described in Section III.F (WHICH

DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ADVANCE ENGINEERING FEES

ALREADY PAID BY A PRIVATE PARTY), AND FOLLOWING
CONSTRUCTION BY THE Applicant of the USS, AT&T will engineer and perform the work required to convert its existing aerial facilities to underground facilities in the area in the District shown on Applicants’ plans, which are attached hereto as Exhibit A.

2. If, during the installation or construction of communications facilities, AT&T employees, subcontractors, or agents encounter any Hazardous Substance(s) that may be disturbed by AT&T's activities:
a. AT&T shall give prompt written notice of the discovery of the Hazardous Substance(s) to Applicant;
b. AT&T shall suspend performance under this Agreement until (1) containment and removal of the Hazardous Substance(s) has been completed and approved by the appropriate governmental
agency(ies), if such approval is required, or approved by AT&T if governmental agency(ies) approval is not required, or (2) Applicant reasonably demonstrates that the Hazardous
Substance(s) will not be disturbed by AT&T's activities; c. AT&T's performance of its obligations under this Agreement is extended for the amount of time which it takes to complete containment/removal of the Hazardous Substance(s); and, d. If Applicant elects not to remove/contain the Hazardous Substance(s), AT&T may terminate this Agreement without further liability by giving advance notice to Applicant no later than ten (10) days after the date the Applicant notifies AT&T of its decision not to remove/contain the Hazardous Substance(s). In this case, Applicant shall reimburse AT&T for AT&T's share of the USS cost paid by AT&T and for the costs incurred by AT&T for the placement of cables and wiring on the Project and the wrecking associated with that placement up to the effective date of the termination. Upon such payment, Applicant shall become the owner of said wire and cables.
7 October 20, 2025 Item 12
324596 (Rev. 3/15/2011)
Aerial to Underground Conversion
Construction Agreement

3. Applicant shall be responsible for the construction and installation of the necessary USS along the public way and utility rights of way in the District and shall prepare all documents necessary to coordinate and implement the Project plans. The documents shall include, but shall not be limited to: (a) Project Plans and Specifications, which shall be prepared in accordance with specifications and drawings furnished to Applicant by AT&T; (b) documents that delineate all USS to be constructed and installed within the District; (c) a Bid Package covering the construction and installation of the USS for which Applicant is responsible; (d) separate agreements with Participants pertaining to the construction of facilities for the Project; and (e) a contract ("Contract") with an independent contractor for the construction and installation of USS for which Applicant is responsible under the Project. APPLICANT SHALL NOT DEVIATE FROM AT&T’S TRENCH SPECIFICATIONS
WITHOUT AT&T’S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.

4. Applicant shall award the Contract to a qualified bidder. The terms and conditions of the Contract shall oblige the Contractor to furnish all materials, adhere to the Project Plans and Specifications, and install the USS at the locations designated on the map attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A. Applicant shall have full supervision of and control over the independent contractor's construction and installation of the USS.

However, AT&T shall be given the opportunity to inspect the construction and installation of the USS and to coordinate with Applicant to ensure that the construction and installation are completed in accordance with the Project plans and specifications.

Applicant shall require all property owners who are served by the aerial facilities to be replaced within the District to provide and maintain the USS on their property.

C. Term.

This Agreement is effective upon execution and shall continue in effect until terminated or canceled as provided by law or this Agreement.

D. Title
Upon inspection and acceptance in writing of the USS by AT&T, title to the USS and all associated communications facilities placed by or for AT&T, except the underground service connections, shall vest in AT&T, provided that such is free of all liens and encumbrances.

E. Tax Liability
Applicant shall pay, and hold AT&T harmless from and against, all penalties, interest, taxes or other charges that are levied or assessed against Applicant. 8 October 20, 2025 Item 12
324596 (Rev. 3/15/2011)
Aerial to Underground Conversion
Construction Agreement

F. Payment.

Applicant shall pay to AT&T within forty-five (45) days after execution of this Agreement the sum of seventy eight thousand one hundred dollars and fifty cents ($78,100.50) which represents the estimated cost of AT&T preparing specifications and drawings for the USS and inspecting Applicant’s trenching and installation of the USS. This amount does not include prior monies paid.

If applicable, Applicant shall also pay to AT&T a 0% tax component of 0 collected for Federal and State Income Tax in accordance with CPUC decision 87-09-026. CIAC charges are not applicable in this agreement between AT&T and the City of Del Mar.

Applicant shall send payments to:

AT&T ATTN: CWO
14575 Presidio Square Blvd, Floor 1, Room 111
Houston, Texas 77083

G. Cancellation, Modification or Deferment.

If Applicant cancels, modifies or defers its request for conversion of the aerial facilities to underground facilities within the District, Applicant shall pay all charges incurred by AT&T, in accordance with the Tariff.

H. Indemnity; Limitation of Liability.

1. Applicant shall indemnify, defend at AT&T’s request and at no cost or expense to AT&T, and hold harmless AT&T and its officers, agents and employees, as well as its associated and affiliated companies and their respective officers, agents, and employees (“Indemnitees”), from and against any and all losses, damages, expenses, costs, penalties, fines, fees (including reasonable attorney's and consultant's fees), or liabilities (collectively "Liabilities"), incurred as a result of any injury to or death of any person(s) or damage to any property(ies) arising out of or in connection with the materials used or the work performed by Applicant under this Agreement or the condition of the Project's property, including environmental contamination, except where such Liabilities are caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnitees.

2. AT&T shall notify Applicant within a reasonable time of any written claim or demand against AT&T for which Applicant is responsible under this section. Applicant shall also (a) keep AT&T fully informed as to the progress of such defense, and (b) afford AT&T, at its own expense, an opportunity to participate with Applicant in the defense or settlement of such claims, demand, lawsuits or other legal proceedings. 9 October 20, 2025 Item 12
324596 (Rev. 3/15/2011)
Aerial to Underground Conversion
Construction Agreement

3. AT&T shall indemnify, at Applicant’s request, and at no cost or expense to Applicant, defend Applicant and its council, agents, and employees (“City Indemnitees”) from and against any and all losses, damages, expenses, costs, penalties, fines, fees (including reasonable attorney's and consultant's fees), or liabilities (collectively "Liabilities"), incurred as a result of any injury to or death of any person(s) or damage to any property(ies) arising out of or in connection AT&T’s installation of facilities in the USS, or the condition of AT&T facilities in the USS, except where such Liabilities are caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of Applicant. Applicant shall notify AT&T within a reasonable time of any written claims or demand against Applicant for which AT&T is responsible under this section.

4. These indemnities shall survive the termination or cancellation of this Agreement or any provision to the contrary herein.

5. IN NO EVENT SHALL EITHER PARTY BE LIABLE TO THE OTHER

PARTY FOR INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, PUNITIVE, OR

CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, WHETHER BY TORT OR

CONTRACT, INCLUDING LOST REVENUES, LOSS OF PROFITS

OR OTHER COMMERCIAL OR ECONOMIC LOSS ARISING OUT

OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS CONTRACT, INCLUDING,

WITHOUT LIMITATION, NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OR

FAILURE TO PERFORM, OR A DEFECT OR FAILURE TO

PERFORM OR DEFECT OF CABLE OR WIRING, REGARDLESS OF
THE FORESEEABILITY THEREOF.

I. Insurance.

1. With respect to Applicant’s performance under this Agreement, and in addition to Applicant’s obligation to indemnify, Applicant shall at its sole cost and expense, maintain the insurance coverages and limits required by this Section and any additional insurance and/or bonds required by law:
i. at all times during the term of this Agreement and until completion of all work associated with this Agreement, whichever is later; and ii. with respect to any coverage maintained in a “claims-made” policy, for two (2) years following the term of this Agreement or completion of all work associated with this Agreement, whichever is later. If a “claims-made” policy is maintained, the retroactive date must precede the commencement of work under this
Agreement;

2. Applicant shall also require each subcontractor who may perform work under this Agreement or enter upon the work site to maintain coverages, requirements, and limits at least as broad as those listed in this section 10 October 20, 2025 Item 12
324596 (Rev. 3/15/2011)
Aerial to Underground Conversion
Construction Agreement

from the time when the subcontractor begins work, throughout the term of the subcontractor’s work and, with respect to any coverage maintained on a “claims-made” policy, for two (2) years thereafter;
a. procure the required insurance from an insurance company eligible to do business in the state or states where work will be performed and having and maintaining a Financial Strength Rating of “A-” or better and a Financial Size Category of “VII” or better, as rated in the A.M. Best Key Rating Guide for Property and Casualty Insurance Companies, except that, in the case of Workers’ Compensation insurance, Applicant may procure insurance from the state fund of the state where work is to be performed; and b. deliver to AT&T certificates of insurance stating the types of insurance and policy limits. Applicant shall provide or will endeavor to have the issuing insurance company provide at least 30 days advance written notice of cancellation, non-renewal, or reduction in coverage, terms, or limits to AT&T. Applicant shall deliver such certificates:
i. prior to commencement of any work;
ii. prior to expiration of any insurance policy required in this Section; and
iii. for any coverage maintained on a “claims-made” policy, for two (2) years following the term of this Agreement or
completion of all work associated with this Agreement,
whichever is later.

3. The Parties agree:
a. the failure of AT&T to demand such certificate of insurance or failure of AT&T to identify a deficiency will not be construed as a waiver of Applicant’s obligation to maintain the insurance required under this Agreement;
b. that the insurance required under this Agreement does not represent that coverage and limits will necessarily be adequate to protect Applicant, nor be deemed as a limitation on Applicant’s liability to AT&T in this Agreement;
c. Applicant may meet the required insurance coverages and limits with any combination of primary and Umbrella/Excess liability insurance; and
Applicant is responsible for any deductible or self-insured retention. 11 October 20, 2025 Item 12
324596 (Rev. 3/15/2011)
Aerial to Underground Conversion
Construction Agreement

4. The insurance coverage required by this section includes:
a. Workers’ Compensation insurance with benefits afforded under the laws of any state in which the work is to be performed and Employers Liability insurance with limits of at least:
$500,000 for Bodily Injury – each accident
$500,000 for Bodily Injury by disease – policy limits
$500,000 for Bodily Injury by disease – each employee
To the fullest extent allowable by Law, the policy must include a waiver of subrogation in favor of AT&T, its affiliates, and their directors, officers and employees.

In states where Workers’ Compensation insurance is a
monopolistic state-run system, Applicant shall add Stop Gap Employers Liability with limits not less than $500,000 each accident or disease.
b. Commercial General Liability insurance written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 00 01 12 04 or a substitute form providing equivalent coverage, covering liability arising from premises, operations, personal injury, products/completed operations, and liability assumed under an insured contract (including the tort liability of another assumed in a business contract) with limits of at least:
$2,000,000 General Aggregate limit;
$1,000,000 each occurrence limit for all bodily injury or property damage incurred in any one (1) occurrence;
$1,000,000 each occurrence limit for Personal Injury and Advertising Injury;
$2,000,000 Products/Completed Operations Aggregate limit; $1,000,000 each occurrence limit for Products/Completed Operations;
$1,000,000 Damage to Premises Rented to You (Fire Legal Liability).

The Commercial General Liability insurance policy must:
12 October 20, 2025 Item 12
324596 (Rev. 3/15/2011)
Aerial to Underground Conversion
Construction Agreement

i. include AT&T, its affiliates, and their directors, officers, and employees as Additional Insureds. Applicant shall
provide a copy of the Additional Insured endorsement to AT&T. The Additional Insured endorsement may either be
specific to AT&T or may be “blanket” or “automatic”
addressing any person or entity as required by contract. A copy of the Additional Insured endorsement must be
provided within 60 days of execution of this Agreement
and within 60 days of each Commercial General Liability policy renewal;
ii. include a waiver of subrogation in favor of AT&T, its affiliates, and their directors, officers and employees; and iii. be primary and non-contributory with respect to any insurance or self-insurance that is maintained by AT&T. c. Business Automobile Liability insurance with limits of at least $1,000,000 each accident for bodily injury and property damage, extending to all owned, hired, and non-owned vehicles.
d. Umbrella/Excess Liability insurance with limits of at least $1,000,000 each occurrence with terms and conditions at least as broad as the underlying Commercial General Liability, Business Auto Liability, and Employers Liability policies. Umbrella/Excess Liability limits will be primary and non-contributory with respect to any insurance or self-insurance that is maintained by AT&T.

J. Warranty.

1. Applicant warrants that that for a period of two (2) years following acceptance of the USS by AT&T, all work and materials to be furnished under this Agreement:
a. shall conform in all respects to the requirements of this Agreement; b. are adequate for the purposes for which they are intended; c. are free from any defects in design, materials, workmanship and title including, but not limited to, defects that will cause caving or sinking of the Trench, the USS, paving, or other materials.

2. Applicant warrants that qualified personnel will perform all work promptly and with diligence, to AT&T’s reasonable satisfaction, and that all work and materials shall be subject to all statutory and express or implied warranties. This warranty shall survive inspection, acceptance, termination and payment.
13 October 20, 2025 Item 12
324596 (Rev. 3/15/2011)
Aerial to Underground Conversion
Construction Agreement

3. Except as disclosed to and acknowledged by AT&T in writing, Applicant is not aware of the presence of any Hazardous Substance at the locations on the Project where AT&T will be installing cable and wiring and performing wrecking in association with such installations.

K. Liens.

Applicant and its agents and contractors shall keep the USS free from any statutory or common law lien arising out of any work performed, materials furnished or obligations incurred by Applicant, its agents or contractors. In the event a lien is recorded against the USS and it is not removed from the record within ten (10) days after notice is given by AT&T to Applicant to do so, AT&T shall have the right to pay and discharge the lien without regard to whether the lien shall be lawful, valid or correct. Applicant shall, within thirty (30) days after receiving written notice from AT&T, reimburse AT&T for any such claim paid by it.

L. Licenses and Easements.

Prior to construction of the Project, Applicant shall, at no cost to AT&T, furnish AT&T with any and all licenses or grants of easements that are necessary to accommodate the Project, including the construction and maintenance of AT&T’s facilities.

M. (HAS BEEN REMOVED FOR THIS AGREEMENT)
N. Damage to Facilities.

Applicant and its employees, agents and contractors shall exercise special precaution and care to avoid causing damage to AT&T’s facilities in performing work under the Project. Applicant, or it contractors, shall assume responsibility for any and all losses, costs and expenses arising out of, caused by, or in any way connected with such damages, including consequential damages. Applicant shall immediately report in writing the occurrence of any such damage to AT&T.

Applicant shall, on demand, reimburse AT&T for the entire expense incurred in replacing or repairing the damage.

O. Schedule of Work.

AT&T shall not commence detailed engineering of the Project prior to receiving a copy of this Agreement that has been executed by Applicant. AT&T shall have its facilities converted contingent upon mutually acceptable schedules, timely obtaining of permits, licenses and other documents, and not being delayed by those uncontrollable forces described in Section III.P below.

P. Force Majeure.

Neither AT&T nor Applicant shall be held liable to the other party for any delay in performance under this Agreement from any cause beyond its control and 14 October 20, 2025 Item 12
324596 (Rev. 3/15/2011)
Aerial to Underground Conversion
Construction Agreement

without its fault or negligence, such as acts of God, acts of civil or military authority, government regulations, the presence of archeological or historical artifacts or Hazardous Substances on, in, or near the Project, embargoes, epidemics, war, terrorist acts, riots, insurrections, fires, explosions, earthquakes, nuclear accidents, floods, strikes, power blackouts, volcanic action, other major environmental disturbances, unusually severe weather conditions, inability to secure products or services of other persons or transportation facilities, or acts or omissions of carriers. If any of the foregoing events occur, AT&T agrees, if requested by Applicant, to accelerate its efforts hereunder if reasonably feasible in order to regain lost time, so long as Applicant agrees to reimburse AT&T for the incremental actual costs of such efforts.

Q. Compliance With Laws.

The Parties shall comply with all applicable federal, state, county, and local statutes, laws, ordinances, regulations, and codes. Applicant further agrees to comply with all applicable Executive Orders and regulations, including, but not limited to, those that are attached to this Agreement as Exhibit C. As used in Exhibit C, “Contractor” means Applicant.

IV. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

A. Assignment.

Applicant shall not wholly or partially assign this Agreement without the prior written consent of AT&T.

B. Binding Effect.

This Agreement shall be for the benefit of and is binding upon the respective successors and assigns of the parties hereto.

C. Termination.

This Agreement automatically terminates upon completion and acceptance of the USS by AT&T. In the event of any material default or breach of this Agreement by either Applicant or AT&T, in addition to all other rights and remedies which the non-breaching party may have at law or in equity, the non-breaching party shall have the immediate right to terminate this Agreement by giving ten (10) days prior written notice of termination. The notice shall specify the cause of termination and shall give the breaching party a reasonable opportunity to cure and correct any such cause. In the event this Agreement is terminated or suspended as provided herein, the non-breaching party shall not be liable to the breaching party or any other person or entity for any losses, damages or claims that arise as a result of termination. In the event of termination by AT&T after breach or default by Applicant, Applicant shall pay to AT&T all costs and expenses incurred by AT&T prior to termination of this Agreement. Any 15 October 20, 2025 Item 12
324596 (Rev. 3/15/2011)
Aerial to Underground Conversion
Construction Agreement

termination of this Agreement in whole or in part shall not release the breaching party from any liability or obligation under this Agreement, whether of indemnity or otherwise, that accrued or that may be accruing or that arises out of any claim that may have accrued or may be accruing at the time of termination.

D. Attorneys’ Fees.

If any action is brought to adjudicate the rights granted in this Agreement or to enforce any of the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees in an amount to be determined by a court or a tribunal of competent jurisdiction.

E. Entire Agreement.

This Agreement and the Exhibits attached hereto that are incorporated herein by this reference constitute the entire Agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. All prior agreements, representations, statements, negotiations and understandings are superseded.

F. Independent Contractor.

Applicant and its agents, employees and contractors shall perform all work under this Agreement as independent contractors and not as affiliates, partners, joint ventures, agents, employees, servants or assigns of AT&T.

G. Jurisdiction.

This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and is subject to the applicable rules, regulations and tariffs on file with the CPUC.

H. Notices.

All notices and other communications hereunder shall be in writing addressed as follows and shall be deemed given when: delivered in person, delivered to an 16 October 20, 2025 Item 12
324596 (Rev. 3/15/2011)
Aerial to Underground Conversion
Construction Agreement

agent, such as an overnight or similar delivery service, or three days after being deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid:

APPLICANT AT&T California
City of Del Mar
1050 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
9670 Aero Dr
San Diego, CA 92123
I. Waiver and Amendment.

The provisions of this Agreement shall not be waived, altered, or amended by any representations or promises of any party unless consented to in writing by all parties hereto.

The duly authorized representatives of Applicant and AT&T have executed this Agreement by affixing their signatures on the dates indicated below.

CITY OF DEL MAR PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY

By:___________________________ By:____________________________ Title:__________________________ Title:___________________________ Printed Name:___________________ Printed Name:____________________ Date Signed:____________________ Date Signed:_____________________ 17 October 20, 2025 Item 12
324596
Exhibit A
Applicant’s plans
18 October 20, 2025 Item 12
324596

EXHIBIT B
AT&T’S ESTIMATED COSTS
19 October 20, 2025 Item 12
324596
Exhibit C
Executive Orders and Associated Regulations
AT&T California and AT&T Nevada, as common carriers of telecommunications services, engage in work as contractors for various departments and agencies of the United States Government. Also, certain facilities may be constructed pursuant to federally assisted construction programs. Because of the foregoing, work under this contract may be subject to the provisions of certain Executive Orders, federal laws and associated regulations. To the extent that such Executive Orders, federal laws and associated regulations apply to the work under this contract, and only to that extent, Contractor agrees to comply with the provisions of all such Executive Orders, federal laws and associated regulations as no in force or as may be amended in the future, including, but not limited to the following:

1. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PROVISIONS.

In accordance with Executive Order 11246, dated September 24, 1965, and 41 C.F.R. § 60-1.4, the parties incorporate herein by this reference the regulations and contract clauses required by those provisions to be made a part of nonexempt contracts and subcontracts.

2. CERTIFICATION OF NONSEGREGATED FACILITIES.

In accordance with Executive Order 11246, dated September 24, 1965, and 41 C.F.R. § 60-1.8, Contractor certifies that it does not and will not maintain or provide for its employees any facilities segregated on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin at any of its establishments, and that it does not and will not permit its employees to perform their services at any location under its control, where such segregated facilities are maintained. The term "facilities" as used herein means waiting rooms, work areas, restaurants and other eating areas, time clocks, restrooms, wash rooms, locker rooms and other storage or dressing areas, parking lots, drinking fountains, recreation or entertainment areas, transportation, and housing facilities provided for employees, provided that separate or single-user toilet and necessary changing facilities shall be provided to assure privacy between the sexes. Contractor will obtain similar certifications from proposed subcontractors prior to the award of any nonexempt subcontract.

3. CERTIFICATION OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM.

Contractor certified that it has developed and is maintaining an Affirmative Action Plan as required by 41 C.F.R. § 60-1.40.

4. CERTIFICATION OF FILING.

Contractor certifies that it will file annually, on or before the 31st of March, complete and accurate reports on Standard Form 100 (EEO-1) or such forms as may be promulgated in its place as required by 41 C.F.R. § 60-1.7.

5. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR DISABLED VETERANS AND VETERANS OF THE VIETNAM ERA.

In accordance with Executive Order 11701, dated January 24, 1973, and 41 C.F.R. 60-250.20, the parties incorporate herein by this reference the regulations and contract clauses required by those provisions to be made a part of Government contracts and subcontracts.

6. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR HANDICAPPED PERSONS.

In accordance with Executive Order 11758, dated January 15, 1974, and 41 C.F.R. § 60-741.20, the parties incorporate herein by this reference the regulations and contract clauses required by those provisions to be made a part of Government contracts and subcontracts.

7. UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS AND SMALL
DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS CONCERNS.
48 C.F.R., Ch. 1, § 19.740(4) and 19.708(a) require that the following clause is included:

Utilization of Small Business concerns and Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns (June, 1985)
(a) It is the policy of the United States that small business concerns and small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals shall have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in performing contracts let by and Federal agency, including contracts and subcontracts for subsystems, assemblies, components, and related services for major systems. It is further the policy of the United States that its prime contractors establish procedures to ensure the timely payment of amounts due pursuant to the terms of their subcontracts with small business concerns and small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. (b) The Contractor hereby agrees to carry out this policy in the awarding of subcontracts to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. The Contractor further agrees to cooperate in any studies or surveys as may be conducted by the United States Small Business Administration or the awarding agency of the United States as may be necessary to determine the extent of the Contractor's compliance with this clause. (c) As used in this contract, the term "small business concern" shall mean a small business as defined pursuant to section 3 of the Small Business Act and relevant regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. The term "small business concern owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals" shall mean a small business concern:
(1) Which is at least 51 percent owned by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals; or, in the case of any publicly owned businesses, at least 51 percent of the stock of which is owned by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals; and
(2) Whose management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more of such individuals.

The Contractor shall presume that socially and economically disadvantaged individuals include Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian-Pacific Americans, AsianIndian Americans and other minorities, or any other individual found to be disadvantaged by the Administration pursuant to section 8(a) of the Small Business Act. (d) Contractors acting in good faith may rely on written representations by their subcontractors regarding their status as either a small business concern or a small business concern owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.

Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Plan.

Contractor, unless it is a small business concern, as defined in section 3 of the Small Business Act, agrees to adopt and comply with a small business and small disadvantaged business subcontracting plan, which shall be included in and made a part of this contract. The parties incorporate herein by this reference the regulations and contract clauses required by 48 C.F.R., Ch. 1, §§ 19.704(4) and 19.708(b) to be made a part of Government contracts and subcontracts.

8. WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESSES.

As prescribed in 48 C.F.R., Ch. 1, § 19.902, the following clause is included in solicitations and contracts when the contract amount is expected to be over the small purchase threshold, unless (a) the contract is to be performed entirely outside the United States, its possessions, Puerto Rico, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or (b) a personal services contract is contemplate:
(a) "Woman-owned small businesses," as used in this clause, means businesses that are at least 51 percent owned by women who are United States citizens and who also control and operate the business.
"Control," as used in this clause, means exercising the power to make policy decisions. "Operate," as used in this clause, means being actively involved in the day-to-day management of the business.
(b) Policy. It is the policy of the Government to award contracts to concerns that agree to perform substantially in labor surplus areas (LSA's) when this can be done consistent with the efficient performance of the contract and at prices no higher than are obtainable elsewhere. The Contractor agrees to use its best efforts to place subcontracts in accordance with this policy. (c) Order of Preference. In complying with paragraph (b) above and with paragraph (c) of the clause of this contract entitled Utilization of Small Business Concerns and Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns, the Contractor shall observe the following order of preference in awarding subcontracts: (1) small business concerns that are LSA concerns, (2) other small business concerns, and (3) other LSA concerns.
(d) Definitions. "Labor surplus area," as used in this clause, means a geographical area identified by the Department of Labor in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 654, Subpart A, as an area of concentrated unemployment or underemployment or an area of labor surplus. "Labor surplus area concern," as used in this clause, means a concern that together with its first-tier subcontractors will perform substantially in labor surplus areas. Performance is substantially in labor surplus area if the costs incurred under the contract on account of manufacturing, production, or performance of appropriate services in labor surplus areas exceed 50 percent of the contract price.

Labor Surplus Area Subcontract Program.
(a) See the Utilization of Labor Surplus Area Concerns clause of this contract for applicable definitions.
(b) The Contractor agrees to establish and conduct a program to encourage labor surplus area (LSA) concerns to compete for subcontracts within their capabilities at prices no higher than obtainable elsewhere. The contractor shall --
(1) Designate a liaison officer who will (i) maintain liaison with authorized representatives of the Government on LSA matters, (ii) supervise compliance with the Utilization of Labor Surplus Area Concerns clause, and (iii) administer the Contractor's labor surplus area subcontracting program;
(2) Provide adequate and timely consideration of the potentialities of LSA concerns in all make-or-buy decisions;
(3) Ensure that LSA concerns have an equitable opportunity to compete for subcontracts, particularly by arranging solicitations, time for the preparation of offers, quantities, specifications, and delivery schedules so as to facilitate the participation of LSA concerns; (4) include the Utilization of Labor Surplus Area Concerns clause in subcontracts that offer substantial LSA subcontracting opportunities; and (5) Maintain records showing (i) the procedures adopted and (ii) the Contractor's performance, to comply with this clause. The records will be kept available for review by the Government until the expiration of 1 year after the award of this contract, or for such longer period as may be required by any other clause of this contract or by applicable law or regulations. (c) The Contractor further agrees to insert in any related subcontract that may exceed $500,000 and that contains the Utilization of Labor Surplus Area Concerns clause, terms that conform substantially to the language of this clause, including this paragraph (c), and to notify the Contracting Officer of the names of subcontractor.
20 October 20, 2025 Item 12
324596
21 October 20, 2025 Item 12

ATTACHMENT E
22 October 20, 2025 Item 12
8-25-23
Utility Undergrounding District 1B (UUD 1B) - Stratford Court North 1552
122 110 1540 15th St Camino Del Mar
Camino Del Mar
12th St
1431 1415 1409
1353
1355
1343 1329
1323
1321
1319
1307 1330 1302 1234 1202 1205 1219 1227 1241 207 1425
1407
1405
1339
1315
150 1420 140813441322 1310 1140 1130 1110 1236 1246 125 119 115100 112 148 1344 1320 118 124 Legend
DISTRICT 1B LIMITS
1104
1135
205
207

209
1105 220
230
232 201 Stratford Ct
Camino Del Mar
12th St.

Sea Orbit Ln
1334
13th St
Lois Ln
1281/2

128
Stratford Ct
Coast Blvd
Ocean Ave
104
122
120
130
140
150
152 203
211
213
215
210 1150
234
238
1310 1312
230
228
222
220
1328 202
121
123
139
141
145
147
155
157 155
1552
11th St.

Stratford Ct
Pacific Ln
Delmar Ln
1310
1300
140
142
165
167
1412
221 225
215
211
207
0 1404 1332 0
Pacific Ln
0 0
13th St
10th St.

Penny Ln
1418 1416
1414
1454 1448
1446 1442
1440 1442
1438
1342
1335
1333
1428
1426
0 1230
1228
1212
1210
1436
1424
1355 1353
1351 1349
1347 1345
1355
1352
1350
8-31-23
23 October 20, 2025 Item 12
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: October 20, 2025
SUBJECT: Re-Introduction of an Ordinance to Amend Municipal Code Chapter 23.50 and Repeal and Replace Chapter 23.51 Related to Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Regulations (A25-001)
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 2) Amend related code sections of the City’s Tree regulations within DMMC Chapter 23.50 (A25-001).

PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:

On July 7, 2025, the City Council held a noticed public hearing to review and introduce an Ordinance to repeal and replace DMMC Chapter 23.51 (Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight), amend related subsections of DMMC Chapter 23.50, and amend DMMC Chapters 30.04 (Definitions) and 30.86 (Supplemental Regulations) to limit the maximum allowed height of hedges. After receiving a staff presentation, asking clarifying questions, receiving public testimony, and discussing the proposed DMMC amendments, the City Council directed staff to return to a future Council meeting for a re-introduction of the Ordinance with the following revisions:

1. Separate the proposed “Hedge Height” Zone Code Amendment (ZA25-001) from the proposed TSVS amendments;

2. Remove the proposed Indemnification subsection of the TSVS regulations;

3. Include “potted” or container plants as eligible “Trees” for TSVS review;

4. Expand Sunlight Obstruction eligibility from being just the Primary Living Area (PLA) to any affected areas within a residence; and

5. Reassess the proposed eligibility time period (look-back) of starting on a fixed date.

The re-introduction of the Ordinance with revisions discussed above was scheduled for the October 6, 2025, City Council meeting. However, the meeting was cancelled after the posting 1 October 20, 2025 Item 13
City Council Agenda Report
A25-001 (TSVS Amendments)
October 20, 2025

and distribution of the meeting agenda and packet. The content of this agenda report and its attachments is largely the same of the October 6, 2025 agenda report, with the exception of the report date, the correction of minor typos in the proposed replacement to DMMC Chapter

23.51, and a proposed addition to DMMC section 23.51.150 that creates a “PreApplication/Early Consultation Process” for residents seeking to restore scenic views and/or sunlight obstructed by City Trees, and attachment of “red dot” correspondence received prior to the October 6, 2025 hearing.

BACKGROUND:

The City Council Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 included updating Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 23.51, also known as the Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight (TSVS) Ordinance. A detailed background and additional information pertaining to this update, including section by section summarizations of the proposed amendment to the TSVS regulations, is contained within an agenda report presented to the City Council on July 7, 2025, which can be accessed at Regular Meeting Agenda Packet 7-7-2025 (Item #17).

Following is a summary of the steps staff performed to accomplish the update:
• On October 7, 2024, staff presented to the City Council nine “Guiding Principles” to inform and influence the TSVS update process. The City Council-approved Guiding Principles are attached as Attachment B.
• Staff evaluated reoccurring issues that have arisen while processing TSVS applications since the original adoption of the TSVS Ordinance (No. 747) in July 2002. • 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. • On December 2, 2024, staff received City Council input and direction regarding significant policy and procedural issues to be addressed through the update. The City Council discussed the information presented and directed staff to proceed forward with proposed amendments to DMMC Chapter 23.51 (TSVS) and to further explore the possibility of regulating the heights of hedges through maximum height allowances. A copy of the December 2, 2024, City Council agenda report is included as Attachment C.
• Staff prepared draft amendments throughout DMMC Chapter 23.51 (TSVS). 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). • In addition to amending DMMC Chapter 23.51 and related sections of DMMC 23.50 (Trees), proposed amendments to Zone Code Chapters 30.04 (Zoning Definitions) and 30.86 (Supplemental Regulations) were prepared that would limit the height of 2 October 20, 2025 Item 13
City Council Agenda Report
A25-001 (TSVS Amendments)
October 20, 2025

new or replacement hedges in required side and rear yards (setbacks) to a maximum of six feet.
• 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.
• As mentioned previously, a draft Ordinance to repeal and replace DMMC Chapter

23.51 (Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight), amend related subsections of DMMC Chapter 23.50, and amend DMMC Chapters 30.04 (Definitions) and 30.86 (Supplemental Regulations) in relation to hedge heights was presented to the City Council on July 7, 2025, in a noticed public hearing and staff was directed to make revisions and return to City Council. The approved minutes of the July 7 City Council meeting are included as Attachment D.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

Staff is returning to the City Council with an Ordinance that would 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 (A25-001). With the exception of five (5) issue area revisions directed by the City Council on July 7, 2025, the proposed text changes of DMMC Chapter

23.51 remain as presented on that date. Below is an overview of the revisions made since July 7, 2025:

1. Separate the proposed Hedge Height Zone Code Amendment (ZA25-001) from the proposed TSVS amendments (DMMC Chapters 30.04 (Definitions) and

30.86 (Supplemental Regulations):
• This revision does not directly affect the proposed language and provisions of the TSVS regulations.
• Staff will return to the City Council after adoption of the Ordinance to gain additional Council direction regarding addressing heights of existing and new hedges in Del Mar. Therefore, amendments to DMMC 30.04 and 30.86 are not included in the proposed Ordinance.

2. Remove Proposed Indemnification subsection (DMMC Section 23.51.130) • Eliminated per City Council direction.

3. Include “potted” or container plants as eligible “Trees” for TSVS review • Revised definition of “Tree” to clarify that the subject trees and plants could be growing in the ground or in an “above-ground container.” 3 October 20, 2025 Item 13
City Council Agenda Report
A25-001 (TSVS Amendments)
October 20, 2025

4. Expand Sunlight Obstruction eligibility from just the Primary Living Area (PLA) to any affected areas within a residence
• Removed all references to “Primary Living Area” or “PLA” in relation to (only) Sunlight Obstruction. As revised, an Applicant can seek relief/restoration of sunlight obstructed from reaching any room or rooms of a residence instead of just the PLA.

5. Eligibility time frame proposed to remain ten (10) years prior to the submittal of a complete TSVS application, not the date of 2002 TSVS Ordinance effectiveness
• Based on City Council comments and direction, and after revisiting concerns about the potential impacts a fixed eligibility date could have on mature trees and vegetation, it is staff’s determination that the 10-year look back/date of ownership criteria has generally worked well to strike a balance between the benefits of “trees” and “views” and encourages residents to address view and sunlight obstruction issues before vegetation matures and becomes part of a neighborhood’s, and the City’s, natural character.
• Therefore, staff is removing its proposal to modify that specific criteria for application submittal, thus proposing leave the 10-year eligibility/date of ownership rule in place.

While not specifically directed by the City Council on July 7, 2025, three additional revisions to the TSVS regulations have been included in the draft Ordinance. First, staff added language to require a certified arborist to be on-site during all TSVS trimming/restoration activities (DMMC Section (23.51.080). Second, DMMC Section 23.51.080(B)(6) has been modified to require that the decision maker consider the feasibility of replacement plantings when Trees are removed for the restorative action. Lastly, on July 7, 2025, staff’s presentation of the proposed TSVS amendments recommended that additional language be added to the beginning of Section 23.51.150 (Process for Alleging Obstruction of Scenic Views and/or Sunlight by City Trees) of the updated code. Addition of the language will address a concern raised by the Planning Commission that a formal “early neighbor consultation” process is needed in the newly proposed procedures for residents seeking view restoration from City trees, prior to formal application submittal and payment of processing fees. This newly proposed code language has been added to DMMC Section 23.51.150 in Exhibit A of the draft Ordinance (Attachment A).

Given the large number of proposed changes to DMMC Chapter 23.51 (TSVS), it is recommended the City Council repeal and replace Chapter 23.51 in its entirety, and therefore, has not provided a redlined version of all proposed amendments. The proposed replacement of Chapter 23.51 is included with the draft Ordinance included as Attachment A and a copy of the current TSVS Chapter is included as Attachment E for reference and comparison.

However, to easily identify text revisions made since the July 7, 2025, meeting, refer to Attachment F for a redlined version.
4 October 20, 2025 Item 13
City Council Agenda Report
A25-001 (TSVS Amendments)
October 20, 2025

CORRESPONDENCE:

Following City Council hearing on July 7, 2025, resident Janet Wilson sent several letters regarding the proposed TSVS amendments to City staff and City Council members (Attachment G). In brief, the correspondence provided comment and suggestions regarding TSVS issues such as City Trees, sunlight obstruction, cost appropriation, and transferability of TSVS determinations to future property owners, which was taken into consideration by City staff.

In anticipation of the City Council public hearing scheduled for October 6, 2025, staff received several “red-dot” communications from the public regarding the proposed TSVS amendments. That correspondence has been included as Attachment H and, in summary, includes comments and suggestions regarding the importance of retaining trees and vegetation, sunlight protection, the protection of views/sunlight from potted plants, potential loss of privacy, and others. Staff has reviewed and acknowledges all of the suggestions received and will be prepared to comment on any of them at the October 20, 2025, public hearing.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item.

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 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.

NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

Updating the Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Ordinance is an identified Tier 2 Council priority for Fiscal Years 2024-25 and 2025-26.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Draft Ordinance
Attachment B – Council Adopted Guiding Principles
Attachment C – December 2, 2024, City Council Agenda Report Attachment D – July 7, 2025, City Council Meeting Minutes Attachment E – Existing DMMC Chapter 23.51 (Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight) Attachment F – TSVS Redlines of City Council-Directed Revisions Attachment G - Public Correspondence after the July 7, 2025 City Council Meeting Attachment H – Red-Dot Correspondence submitted for the October 6, 2025 Meeting. 5 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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 REGULATING TREES,

SCENIC VIEWS AND SUNLIGHT AND AMENDING CHAPTER

23.50 RELATED TO TREE REMOVAL
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 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 Attachment A
6 October 20, 2025 Item 13
Ordinance No. XXXX

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, on July 7, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and voted to continue the item to a future City Council meeting and provided direction to staff that the Ordinance be revised to: 1) Separate the proposed Hedge Height Zone Code Amendment (ZA25-001) from the proposed TSVS amendments; 2) Remove proposed Indemnification subsection of the TSVS regulations; 3) Include “potted” or container plants as eligible Trees for TSVS review; 4) Expand Sunlight Obstruction eligibility from being limited to the Primary Living Area (PLA) to any affected areas within a residence; and 5) Reassess the proposed eligibility time period (look-back) of starting on a fixed date; and
WHEREAS, further consideration of the TSVS process amendments was scheduled for a duly noticed public hearing to be held by the City Council on October 6, 2025; however the City Council meeting was canceled due to a lack of quorum; and WHEREAS, on October 20, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing accepted additional written and oral public testimony, considered the proposed amendments to the DMMC, as revised.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Del Mar hereby ordains as follows:
7 October 20, 2025 Item 13
Ordinance No. XXXX

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.

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. 8 October 20, 2025 Item 13
Ordinance No. XXXX

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;

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. 9 October 20, 2025 Item 13
Ordinance No. XXXX

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.

SECTION FOUR:

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 FIVE :

This Ordinance was introduced by the City Council on October 20, 2025.

SECTION SIX:

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 SEVEN:

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 EIGHT:

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 3rd day of November, 2025. 10 October 20, 2025 Item 13
Ordinance No. XXXX

____________________________
Terry Gaasterland, Mayor
City of Del Mar
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:

RECUSE
ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
11 October 20, 2025 Item 13
Ordinance No. XXXX

______________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
12 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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.
b. 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. c. 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.______
13 October 20, 2025 Item 13

b. Ten (10) years prior to the submittal date of a complete Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight 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

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.
14 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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); 15 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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 a room or rooms, 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 in the ground or in an above-ground container, 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. 16 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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 floor plan and building elevation plans depicting the 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– 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– 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
17 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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 from the Applicant’s PLA, or in case of sunlight obstruction, from the affected room(s) 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. 18 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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.

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. 19 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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. 20 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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”);
21 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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) ten (10) years prior to the submittal date of a complete Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight application;

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 or other documentable 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) ten (10) years prior to the submittal date of a complete Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight application;

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;
22 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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 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 a room or rooms of the Applicant’s primary residence). To render a decision in favor of the Applicant regarding unreasonable Obstruction of Sunlight to one or more rooms in the Applicant’s primary residence, 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 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;

4. Consistent with Section 23.51.040(A) of this Chapter, the Applicant has provided photographic or other documentable evidence of prior Sunlight to one or more rooms taken on or after the later of the following: (i) the date Applicant acquired Applicant’s property; or (ii) ten (10) years prior to the submittal date of a complete Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight application;

5. 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;

6. 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 of a room or rooms within the Applicant’s primary residence at any time between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., Pacific Standard Time (PST); and

7. Restoration of Sunlight to the sunlight obstructed room or rooms 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:
23 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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).
24 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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 shall be considered by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal for feasibility, 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 or trees in the vicinity, 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 and under the supervision of a Certified Arborist.

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.
25 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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 26 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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 27 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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 28 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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.

23.51.140 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. 29 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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. Pre-Application/Early Consultation Process.

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 contact the City of Del Mar Planning and Community Development Department and request to meet with staff to explain the scenic view and/or sunlight obstruction.

2. During the early consultation process, City staff will gather information regarding the TSVS claim of obstruction, verify eligibility for the process, and observe the alleged obstruction.

3. Prior to submitting a TSVS/City Tree application, the Planning and Community Development Director will, in consultation with the Public Works Director and City Arborist, determine if unique factors exist that would cause the City to perform restorative action on the subject City Tree without need to submittal of an application.

B. 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.

C. 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;
30 October 20, 2025 Item 13

2. Perform a site visit to the Applicant’s PLA, room or rooms affected by Sunlight Obstruction, or Solar Energy System; 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.

D. 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.

E. 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.

F. 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. 31 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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. 32 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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
33 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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 C
34 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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 35 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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 36 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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 37 October 20, 2025 Item 13
• 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 38 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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 39 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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 40 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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 41 October 20, 2025 Item 13
Item 10
Issue Identification for an Update to the Trees,
Scenic Views, and Sunlight (TSVS) Regulations
December 2, 2024
42 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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
43 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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)
44 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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” 45 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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
46 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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
47 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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
48 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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 3 49 October 20, 2025
rd Party
Item 13
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
50 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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
51 October 20, 2025 Item 13
11 52 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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 53 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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.
54 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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 55 October 20, 2025 Item 13
City Council Regular Minutes
July 7, 2025

Council discussion focused on the rationale of the Councilmembers who set this item for a de novo hearing.

IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR GAASTERLAND AND SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR MARTINEZ TO UPHOLD TO DRB’S DECISION WITH THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN THE RESOLUTION PREPARED BY STAFF AND ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2025-27, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT DRB24-006, A MAJOR REMODEL OF AN EXISTING 1,578 SQUARE-FOOT, ONE-STORY RESIDENCE THAT WOULD INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION A 689 SQUARE-FOOT ADDITION AND VARIOUS IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROJECT SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE R1-10 ZONE AT 483 AVENIDA PRIMAVERA, DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER (APN): 299-290-04-00.” (VOTE 4-0) Ayes: Mayor Gaasterland; Deputy Mayor Martinez; Councilmembers Quirk and Spelich; Noes: 0; Recuse: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.

ITEM 17: 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) (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-4, 401-9)
An introduction to the item was provided by Mayor Gaasterland. A presentation was provided by Principal Planner Matt Bator. Planning and Community Development Director Brindley was available to answer questions.

Councilmember Quirk left the meeting during staff’s presentation at approximately 7:01 p.m.

Council questions focused on consideration to remove hedges from the TSVS ordinance updates and to address separately; length of the proposed look back period; whether prior TSVS without photos could be re-opened under the new regulations if adopted; proposed fees; rationale for inclusion of the indemnification language in the proposed ordinance; appeal procedure in the proposed ordinance; whether potted plants are covered by the proposed ordinance; protected trees definition related to tree removal permits; current tree removal permit procedure; 15 day period for payment prior to issuing penalties included in the proposed ordinance; City process for resolving hedges or other landscaping that creates safety issues in the public right-of-way; proposed grandfathering of hedges in the proposed ordinance; whether the fire marshal has reviewed the vegetation on the Staver property adjacent to Del Mar Woods; fire risk mitigation related to overgrown vegetation; sunlight provisions related to primary living area in the proposed ordinance; State of California Solar Rights Act; cost shifting in the proposed regulations; and how the proposed ordinance would affect or potentially change a cost sharing agreement for a prior TSVS with a restorative action plan.

Mayor Gaasterland opened the item to public comment and the following people spoke:
1) Catherine Cramton
2) Shirli Weiss with two donations of time from Shelly Duncan and Cindy Griffith 3) Janet Wilson with one donation of time from Nigel Hook 4) Lori Ritman
5) Judy Hunt
6) Karen Lare
7) John Stahl
8) Richard Jamison

ATTACHMENT D
56 October 20, 2025 Item 13
City Council Regular Minutes
July 7, 2025

9) Robert Anderson submitted a speaker slip but did not wish to speak. He indicated he supports regulating hedges but does not support grandfathering in existing hedges. 10) Graham Bernstein
Mayor Gaasterland closed the item to public comment.

Council discussion focused on hedge regulations; importance of sunlight provision; indemnification language; TSVS documentation requirements related to use of historical photos and/or Google Street View images; length of the proposed look back period; desire to maintain arborist oversight of any trimming or maintenance scheduled imposed by a TSVS restorative action plan; desire to address fire mitigation risk; proposed fee structure; and desire to cover potted trees under updated TSVS regulations.

Council consensus was for staff to return with a revised ordinance based on Council feedback including:
protect sunlight access to all windows of a residence, not just the Primary Living Area; remove indemnification language; reassess the eligibility time period (look-back) and prevent “double jeopardy” situations; amend the proposed ordinance to consider potted trees as trees under the TSVS; the City Council directed staff to track fees recovered over a one-year period and report back to Council; and separate the proposed hedge height regulations from the TSVS ordinance update and to emphasize fire risk mitigation in any revisions to the hedge height standards.

VOTE TO CONTINUE MEETING

IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR GAASTERLAND SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR MARTINEZ TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TIME CERTAIN UNTIL 10:20 P.M. (VOTE 3-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER

QUIRK ABSENT)
Ayes: Mayor Gaasterland; Deputy Mayor Martinez; and Councilmember Spelich; Noes: 0; Recuse: 0;

Absent: Councilmember Quirk; Abstain: 0.

COUNCIL MEETING RECESS:

The City Council took a meeting recess from approximately 6:33 p.m. to 6:49 p.m.

CITY COUNCIL OTHER BUSINESS
ITEM 18: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A 2026 STATE BALLOT INITIATIVE SPONSORED BY

OUR NEIGHBORHOOD VOICES TO RESTORE LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER LAND USE PLANNING & ZONING LAW RELATED TO HOUSING (CLERK’S FILE NO. 303-1, 401-14)
A presentation was provided by Mayor Gaasterland and Deputy Mayor Martinez.

There were no public speakers for the item.

Council discussion focused on support for affordable housing; desire for local control over housing policies; and concerns about the methodology used by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) for the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation.

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER SPELICH AND SECONDED BY MAYOR GAASTERLAND TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2025-28 “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF THE “OUR NEIGHBORHOOD VOICES” BALLOT INITIATIVE

TO AMEND ARTICLE IX OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO MAKE ZONING, DEVELOPMENT, AND LAND USE MATTERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY.” (VOTE 3-0-1 WITH

COUNCILMEMBER QUIRK ABSENT)
57 October 20, 2025 Item 13

ATTACHMENT E
58 October 20, 2025 Item 13
59 October 20, 2025 Item 13
60 October 20, 2025 Item 13
61 October 20, 2025 Item 13
62 October 20, 2025 Item 13
63 October 20, 2025 Item 13
64 October 20, 2025 Item 13
65 October 20, 2025 Item 13
66 October 20, 2025 Item 13
67 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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.
b. 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. c. 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

ATTACHMENT F
68 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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).Ten (10) years prior to the submittal date of a complete Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight 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

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.
69 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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); 70 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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 PLAa room or rooms, 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 in the ground or in an above-ground container, 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. 71 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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 floor plan and building elevation plans depicting the 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
72 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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, or in case of sunlight obstruction, from the affected room(s) 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. 73 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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.
74 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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. 75 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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”);
76 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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) ten (10) years prior to the submittal date of a complete Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight application;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 or other documentable 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) ten (10) years prior to the submittal date of a complete Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight applicationAugust 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;
77 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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 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 a room or rooms of the Applicant’s primary residencethe Applicant’s PLA).

To render a decision in favor of the Applicant regarding unreasonable Obstruction of Sunlight to Applicant’s PLAone or more rooms in the Applicant’s primary residence, 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;

4.3.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;

5.4.Consistent with Section 23.51.040(A) of this Chapter, the Applicant has provided photographic or other documentable documentation evidence of prior Sunlight to one or more roomsfrom the PLA taken on or after the later of the following: (i) the date Applicant acquired Applicant’s property; or (ii) ten (10) years prior to the submittal date of a complete Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight applicationAugust 1, 2002;

6.5.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;

7.6.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 of a room or rooms within the Applicant’s primary residencethe Applicant’s PLA at any time between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., Pacific Standard Time (PST); and

8.7.Restoration of Sunlight to the sunlight obstructed room or roomsApplicant’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. 78 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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:

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):
79 October 20, 2025 Item 13

1. Crown Cleaning. Removing dead, dying, diseased and broken branches from the crown of the Subject Tree(s).

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 shall be considered by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal for feasibility, 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 or trees in the vicinity, 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 and under the supervision of a Certified Arborist.

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.) 80 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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.

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.
81 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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 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 82 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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 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. 83 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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 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.
84 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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, 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. Pre-Application/Early Consultation Process.

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 contact the City of Del Mar Planning and Community Development Department and request to meet with staff to explain the scenic view and/or sunlight obstruction.

2. During the early consultation process, City staff will gather information regarding the TSVS claim of obstruction, verify eligibility for the process, and observe the alleged obstruction.

3. Prior to submitting a TSVS/City Tree application, the Planning and Community Development Director will, in consultation with the Public Works Director and City Arborist, determine if unique factors exist that would cause the City to perform restorative action on the subject City Tree without need to submittal of an application.

BA. Application Submittal.
85 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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.

CB. 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;

2. Perform a site visit to the Applicant’s PLA, room or rooms affected by Sunlight Obstruction, or Solar Energy System; 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.

DC. 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). 86 October 20, 2025 Item 13

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.

ED. 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.

FE. 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.

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. 87 October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Matt Bator
Subject: FW: TSVS Rewrite: Concerns Regarding “Run with the Land” Language Attachments: Jurisdictional View Ordinance Comparison Chart.pdf; RunWithTheLand_Research.xlsx From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 4:07 PM
To: Planning Mail Box <[email protected]>; Tracy Martinez <[email protected]>; Dan Quirk <[email protected]>; Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>; John Spelich <[email protected]> Cc: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Subject: TSVS Rewrite: Concerns Regarding “Run with the Land” Language 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 and City Councilmembers,
Thank you for your hard work rewriting Del Mar’s TSVS ordinance. For this update, the Planning Department developed a Jurisdictional View Ordinance Comparison Chart of 27 other “view” cities and reviewed historical staff reports from Clyde Hill, which served as the original template for Del Mar’s TSVS in 2002.

Aligning with other cities provides a solid foundation, promotes consistent decision-making, and enhances legal defensibility. These are meaningful goals that should guide the revision process. With this in mind, there are observations about two of the proposed changes in Section 23.51.010 – Purpose:

1. Look-back Window - A Consistent Change
When the Planning Commission asked why the 10-year look-back window was changing, the explanation was that Del Mar is the only city with such a limit, and that removing it would align our ordinance with other “view” cities.

While there doesn’t appear to be controversy around the current 10-year window, the rationale to align with other jurisdictions is sound.

2. Run with the Land - An Inconsistent Shift
When asked why restorative actions shouldn't "run with the land", the Planning Commissioners were told that was never the intent.

The Staff reports (to both the Planning Commission and City Council) describe this change as follows:
"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."
These statements contradict our current ordinance, DMMC 23.51.070(A), which says:

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.
https://library.municode.com/ca/del_mar/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT23BUCO_CH23.51TRSCVISU_23.51.070HIRE AC

ATTACHMENT G
87 October 6, 2025 Item 8 88 October 20, 2025 Item 13
2 Describing this proposed change as a clarification may be misleading, because it is effectively a reversal.

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.

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.

Comparison Snapshot:
 Only 5 cities explicitly state that view decisions do not run with the land. 88 October 6, 2025 Item 8 89 October 20, 2025 Item 13
3  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.

In total, 81% of cities either affirmatively or implicitly allow view decisions to run with the land.

Importantly, none of the comparison cities includes an exception based on inheritance. A scenic view doesn’t change when ownership changes, so why should the protection? Linking rights to how a property is transferred (sold vs inherited) is inconsistent. Additionally, requiring a new owner to restart a process that was already resolved is unnecessary, burdensome, and may undermine the integrity of the original decision.

Adopting this change 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.

Summary
The look-back window change makes sense because it follows the logic of aligning with what other cities are doing. But the “run with the land” proposal doesn’t follow that same logic at all. In fact, it moves Del Mar in the opposite direction.

If one of the goals of this TSVS update is to align with other view cities, the “run with the land” language should be revisited. Laguna Beach offers a clear, well-written model that could serve as a template.

My research can be verified using the attached spreadsheet with direct links to the relevant ordinances.

Thank you for your time,
Janet Wilson
89 October 6, 2025 Item 8 90 October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Matt Bator
Subject: FW: Strengthening Del Mar’s Sunlight Provisions - Comment on July 7 Council Meeting Attachments: SunshineArea.xlsx
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2025 6:28 PM
To: Planning Mail Box <[email protected]>
Cc: Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>; John Spelich <[email protected]>; Dan Quirk <[email protected]>; Tracy Martinez <[email protected]>; Janet Wilson <[email protected]> Subject: Strengthening Del Mar’s Sunlight Provisions - Comment on July 7 Council Meeting 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 and City Councilmembers,
Although the restorative actions when obstructed are similar, Views and Sunlight differ in essential ways. Both contribute to a sense of openness which we all value, but Sunlight surrounds us daily, shaping quality of life, supporting health, and sustaining gardens. Therefore, I was pleased to hear during the July 7 City Council meeting that the scope of Sunlight protection will be revisited and that it will no longer be limited to only Del Mar’s narrowly defined “primary living area.”
How do other “View” cities manage Sunlight protections? Reviewing 27 other “View” cities and 18 of them address Sunlight, of which 9 contain a Sunlight definition:
 3 have “availability or access to light from the sun across property lines”  6 have “availability of direct or indirect Sunlight to the primary living area of a residence” Overview Chart (the spreadsheet with a direct link is attached to double-check this information):
90 October 6, 2025 Item 8 91 October 20, 2025 Item 13
2 Note: View cities that do NOT mention Sunlight protection are Beverly Hills, Culver City, El Cerrito, Malibu, Torrance, Oakland, Rancho Palos Verdes, and Westlake Village.

Interestingly, most jurisdictions allow Sunlight (and View) claims from multiple areas of a home and property and even Del Mar’s “template” city, Clyde Hill, states:
“Living and entertainment areas” means areas from which a view is observed most often by the occupants relative to other portions of the residence, which may include both interior and exterior spaces.”
The majority of View cities reference broader property areas or the entire real property; very few rely solely on a narrowly defined interior space.

While I understand it might be challenging to change Del Mar's definition of Primary Living Area, for Sunshine the broader definition makes sense especially if there aren’t privacy issues! Concerns about a Obstruction of Sunlight & Shade Study Requirement It is being proposed to add the following language to 23.51.040:
“For applications involving sunlight obstruction, requires a shade study.” This is entirely new territory. No other “View” city with Sunlight protection requires this. I wasn't sure what a shade study might be, so I looked it up:

A shade study, also known as a shadow study, is an analysis of how sunlight and shadows interact with a building or site at different times of the day and year. It helps architects, urban planners, and landscape designers understand how sunlight will affect a space, optimize building design, and ensure comfortable outdoor environments.
91 October 6, 2025 Item 8 92 October 20, 2025 Item 13
3 Requiring residents to provide technical studies like a shade study places an unreasonable burden on applicants. Most homeowners would never anticipate needing to document “before” conditions or hire consultants to demonstrate a loss of sunlight.

Critically, Del Mar’s ordinance defines sunlight as both direct and indirect.

Vegetation may not cast sharply defined shadows on windows, but it can still significantly reduce the ambient light around a property, such as the soft, diffused light typical in Del Mar during overcast coastal days (May Gray and June Gloom). Overgrown vegetation can also lessen the quality of low-angle sunlight during late afternoon or sunset year-round. Excessive vegetation can negatively impact daily livability and enjoyment, which is exactly what this ordinance aims to protect.

Shade studies are not designed to measure these qualitative aspects of natural sunlight, and residents should not be expected to have documented such subtle lighting conditions in advance. For all of these reasons, the following proposed language should be reconsidered as unrealistic and overly burdensome:
"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)." Balancing Burden & Justification
It’s difficult and stressful for someone to take a stand and initiate conflict with a neighbor. However, it seems that conflict is a common outcome in every TSVS application. These situations should be more balanced and the property owner causing the issue should be required to justify that their vegetation does not create undue risk or negatively impact their neighbors for several reasons:
 Accountability - Property owners are responsible for maintaining their land, including trees and vegetation. If their property affects others, by blocking Views or Sunlight, they should be accountable for the impact and justify why no action is warranted.  Precedent and Policy Consistency - Requiring justification helps build a consistent record for how similar cases are handled. This supports clearer future policies and reduces subjective or arbitrary outcomes.
 Encouraging Resolution - When both sides must justify their stance, it often encourages communication and compromise, leading to more amicable resolutions without prolonged disputes.

Current Definitions
Sunlight shall mean the availability of direct or indirect Sunlight to the Primary Living Area or to the existing solar energy system of a residence.

Primary Living Area shall mean that (single) portion of a residence from which a Scenic View is observed most often by the occupants and guests at the residence. The determination of Primary Living Area is to be made on a case-by-case basis and shall be consistent with any prior determinations made by the City.

Proposed Definitions
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) 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).
92 October 6, 2025 Item 8 93 October 20, 2025 Item 13
4 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)
Comments
Regarding the current and proposed Primary Living Area requirement of “consistent with any prior determinations,” there are circumstances (such as a remodel) where the Primary Living Area or View Corridor might change.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are not currently part of Del Mar’s TSVS. Is adding them just unnecessary wording and complications since none of the other View cities include ADU in their ordinance? Sunlight and solar energy are closely connected, and Del Mar already has a Solar Energy Ordinance (DMMC

23.20). So, would it make sense for the TSVS ordinance to reference the Solar Energy Ordinance and recognize it as having precedence where solar access is concerned? Doing so would clarify the scope of each ordinance and allow this chapter to focus specifically on revising general Sunlight access, which is the primary purpose.

Consider Real Property or Property Lines vs Primary Living Area? Berkeley does not have a definition for Sunlight, but it is addressed in the definition of Obstruction:
"Obstruction" means any substantial blocking or diminishment of a view from a structure lawfully used as a dwelling or access to sunlight to the real property which is attributable to the growth, maintenance or location of tree(s).”
Perhaps Del Mar follows that lead to update the definition of Obstruction (new words in green):

Obstruction shall mean any substantial blocking or diminishment of Scenic Views from the Primary Living area and/or access to Sunlight to the real property that is attributable to the growth, improper maintenance or location of a Tree or Vegetation.

I hope these observations help ensure that Sunlight access remains a clear, equitable, and enforceable right for every Del Mar resident.

Thank you for your continued attention to this important revision.

Janet Wilson
619.733.1428
93 October 6, 2025 Item 8 94 October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Matt Bator
Subject: FW: TSVS Ordinance Rewrite - Regarding Section 23.51.090 – Concerns Regarding Cost Shifting and Fairness
Attachments: 23.51.090_AllocationsofCosts.pdf
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 9:47 PM
To: Planning Mail Box <[email protected]>; Dan Quirk <[email protected]>; John Spelich <[email protected]>; Tracy Martinez <[email protected]>; Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]> Cc: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Subject: TSVS Ordinance Rewrite - Regarding Section 23.51.090 – Concerns Regarding Cost Shifting and Fairness 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 and City Councilmembers,
For the TSVS rewrite, Guiding Principle #5 states: Ensure an equitable cost allocation process to initiate the view/sunlight restoration process, perform view restoration work, and maintain restored scenic views and sunlight. Extensive revisions have been made to Section 23.51.090 to support Guiding Principle #5 and what has been called Cost Shifting. To better understand these significant changes, I created the attached flowchart. These are my observations.

Overall Observation — Burden on Applicants
The proposed revisions still place a disproportionate burden on Applicants, who must pay substantial up-front costs that are never reimbursed, even when the Reviewing Authority finds the Tree Owner at fault. This imbalance deters legitimate applications, and the expanded length and complexity of the revised ordinance will make the process harder to navigate and more intimidating.

1. Application Fees & Tree Survey Costs
Del Mar's application fees are among the highest compared to other View Cities. Under both the current ordinance and the proposed revisions, regardless of the decision, the Applicant is always responsible for the application fees. This policy should be reconsidered. By the time the Applicant pays the fee, every effort to resolve the matter amicably has already been made. When the Reviewing Authority determines restorative action is appropriate, reimbursement of the fees to the Applicant should be required.

Similarly, when the Reviewing Authority determines restorative action is appropriate, reimbursement of tree survey costs to the Applicant should be required even if the Tree Owner participated in mediation that failed to resolve the matter.

Partial cost-sharing should be allowed only when both parties share responsibility. 94 October 6, 2025 Item 8 95 October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Matt Bator
Subject: FW: Chapter 23.51 - TSVS - Proposed changes - Comments regarding ‘City Tree,’ ‘Parkway,’ and right-of-way responsibilities
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2025 2:20 PM
To: Planning Mail Box <[email protected]>; Dan Quirk <[email protected]>; Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>; John Spelich <[email protected]>; Tracy Martinez <[email protected]>; Ashley Jones <[email protected]>
Cc: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Subject: Chapter 23.51 - TSVS - Proposed changes - Comments regarding ‘City Tree,’ ‘Parkway,’ and right-of-way responsibilities
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 and City Councilmembers,

Chapter 23.51 addresses obstruction and restoration of Scenic Views and Sunlight, and “Trees” appears in the title only because they are the primary cause of an obstruction (and not because the chapter governs Trees).

The proposed changes to 23.51.020 include adding a definition for “City Tree”, but removing the definition of “Tree”.

(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.
(S) Tree shall mean any perennial plant growing on public or private property, having a selfsupporting woody main stem or trunk with the potential to obstruct Scenic Views or Sunlight, including but not limited to Trees, shrubs, hedges, and bushes or any plant material planted or growing in a dense continuous line so as to form a thicket barrier or naturally grown fence.

References to "Tree" shall include the plural.

This new definition of “City Tree” effectively places every tree into one of three categories:

1. Private Tree – owned and maintained by the property owner

2. Public Right-of-Way Tree – located on City property inside the public right-of-way, but maintained by the [adjacent] property owner

3. City Tree – located on City property outside the public right-of-way, and maintained by the City
95 October 6, 2025 Item 8 96 October 20, 2025 Item 13
2 The objective seems to be that the Applicant follows the normal TSVS application process (including associated fees) for both a Private Tree and a Public Right-of-Way Tree, but when a City Tree is causing the obstruction, the ordinance aims to streamline the process. By defining Public Right-of-Way Trees as a subset of City Trees, the ordinance calls out that it is the adjacent property owner (and not the City) who is responsible for maintenance when there is an obstruction under 23.51.

In Del Mar, many homeowners maintain their adjacent right-of-way, but others do not. Under this update, if trees in a property owner’s adjacent right-of-way cause an obstruction, the owner is responsible whether they maintain the trees or even realize the obligation. This issue was raised at the last City Council meeting regarding properties backing onto Jimmy Durante, with many others likely in similar situations. Once clarified, responsibility for obstructions caused by right-of-way trees will be explicitly assigned, a goal behind these changes.

This raises two important questions: Shouldn’t homeowners be formally notified of this new responsibility? And conversely, who is responsible for the public right-of-way when there is no obstruction?
California State Streets and Highways Code section 5610 states that landowners are responsible for maintaining sidewalks in safe and unobstructed condition, even if the sidewalk is publicly owned. This implies landscaping in the right-of-way is also the homeowner's responsibility.

Placing the definitions of ‘City Tree’ and ‘Public Right-of-Way Tree’ in 23.50 Trees would allow 23.51 to remain focused on obstruction, while making clear that homeowners are responsible for maintaining adjacent rights-of-way. Either way, this represents a significant change for all residents.

I hope this helps.

Janet Wilson
619.733.1428
The term “Public Right-of-Way Tree” is awkward. Many municipal codes use “Street Tree” or “Parkway Tree” to describe trees in the right-of-way maintained by adjacent property owners.

City Council Policy 110 addresses private encroachments into city rights-of-way, stating:
“There are numerous circumstances in Del Mar where an improved (paved) section of a City rightof-way is narrower than the width of the right-of-way itself. This results in an area of unimproved right-of-way adjacent to private property. In many cases, the owner of the adjacent property, or designee, proposes to install landscaping and other landscape-related improvements in the unimproved portion of the right-of-way. This has the beneficial effect of beautifying the area adjacent to the paved roadway, without the City having to bear the costs for installing or maintaining the improvements. These are generally considered to be an appropriate use of a rightof-way but still subject to review under the Encroachment Permit process.” https://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1956/110-Private-Encroachments-Into-CityRights-of-Way-PDF

Del Mar Chapter 23.28 – Encroachment Permits
C. Encroachment shall mean development or use of any portion of a City Right-of-Way or Easement in a manner other than its intended use. Encroachment shall include, but not be limited to, any of the following:
96 October 6, 2025 Item 8 97 October 20, 2025 Item 13
3 2. Planting of any tree, shrub, grass or other growing thing within a City Right-of-Way or Easement;
https://library.municode.com/ca/del_mar/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT23BUCO_CH23.28E NPE
Cut-and-paste definitions are maintenance-intensive. Therefore, if 23.51 does require a definition of City Tree, it should be
(E) City Tree - see 23.50.020 City Tree
97 October 6, 2025 Item 8 98 October 20, 2025 Item 13
2 2. Mediation — Determination of “Good Faith”
The revised ordinance should define the standard and identify the decision-making body for determining whether a party has engaged in “good faith” mediation. Without a clear standard, determinations risk being subjective, potentially encouraging strategic behavior that undermines the intent of the cost allocation provisions.

3. Existing Decisions - Ongoing Maintenance
Existing decisions have placed an unfair burden on Applicants to pay for the ongoing maintenance of the Tree Owner’s property. This is inequitable and should be eliminated. Landscaping owners must be responsible for the upkeep of their own property. In the case of Del Mar Woods, Applicants have paid approximately $70,000 over the past 10 years to maintain the Tree Owners’ landscaping.

4. Omission
In Section 23.51.090(D)(2)(a), the second sentence omits “, or City Council on appeal.”

5. Excessive Language
a. Section 23.51.090 has expanded from about a half a page (550 words) to three pages (1,660 words) due to the incorporation of what I term the "nitty-gritty" what-if-then-else scenarios.

Would it be more effective if the cost allocation structure were placed in the ordinance and the implementation details in a supporting Policy or Guidelines document? b. Consider defining "Reviewing Authority" in Section 23.51.020 as "Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal" and using the term consistently to improve clarity and readability.

3. Thank you again for your time and effort on this important rewrite. I hope this input is useful.

Janet Wilson
619.733.1428
98 October 6, 2025 Item 8 99 October 20, 2025 Item 13

TREE OWNER
Maintenance Costs
Pays 100%
Yes
No
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).

No
Done
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. 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).

Initial
Restorative
Action?
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.

Yes
a. For any initial Restorative Action work, 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. 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. 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.

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.

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 Restorative Action work to be completed.

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.

Tree Owner
Cooperative?
BEGIN

APPLICANT
ApplicantPay 100%
Tree Survey Cost
Application Fee
Pays 100%
(regardless of outcome)

TREE OWNER
Restoration Costs
Pays 100%

TREE OWNER
Tree Survey Cost
Refund 100%
(Back to Applicant)
Obstruction?
Yes
NO

TREE OWNER
Restoration Costs
Pays 50%

APPLICANT
Restoration Costs
Pays 50%

TREE OWNER
Tree Survey Cost
Refund 50%
(Back to Applicant)
99 October 6, 2025 Item 8100 October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Matt Bator
Subject: FW: Chapter 23.51 - TSVS - Proposed changes - Comments regarding ‘City Tree,’ ‘Parkway,’ and right-of-way responsibilities
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2025 2:20 PM
To: Planning Mail Box <[email protected]>; Dan Quirk <[email protected]>; Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>; John Spelich <[email protected]>; Tracy Martinez <[email protected]>; Ashley Jones <[email protected]>
Cc: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Subject: Chapter 23.51 - TSVS - Proposed changes - Comments regarding ‘City Tree,’ ‘Parkway,’ and right-of-way responsibilities
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 and City Councilmembers,

Chapter 23.51 addresses obstruction and restoration of Scenic Views and Sunlight, and “Trees” appears in the title only because they are the primary cause of an obstruction (and not because the chapter governs Trees).

The proposed changes to 23.51.020 include adding a definition for “City Tree”, but removing the definition of “Tree”.

(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.
(S) Tree shall mean any perennial plant growing on public or private property, having a selfsupporting woody main stem or trunk with the potential to obstruct Scenic Views or Sunlight, including but not limited to Trees, shrubs, hedges, and bushes or any plant material planted or growing in a dense continuous line so as to form a thicket barrier or naturally grown fence.

References to "Tree" shall include the plural.

This new definition of “City Tree” effectively places every tree into one of three categories:

1. Private Tree – owned and maintained by the property owner

2. Public Right-of-Way Tree – located on City property inside the public right-of-way, but maintained by the [adjacent] property owner

3. City Tree – located on City property outside the public right-of-way, and maintained by the City
100 October 6, 2025 Item 8 101 October 20, 2025 Item 13 2 The objective seems to be that the Applicant follows the normal TSVS application process (including associated fees) for both a Private Tree and a Public Right-of-Way Tree, but when a City Tree is causing the obstruction, the ordinance aims to streamline the process. By defining Public Right-of-Way Trees as a subset of City Trees, the ordinance calls out that it is the adjacent property owner (and not the City) who is responsible for maintenance when there is an obstruction under 23.51.

In Del Mar, many homeowners maintain their adjacent right-of-way, but others do not. Under this update, if trees in a property owner’s adjacent right-of-way cause an obstruction, the owner is responsible whether they maintain the trees or even realize the obligation. This issue was raised at the last City Council meeting regarding properties backing onto Jimmy Durante, with many others likely in similar situations. Once clarified, responsibility for obstructions caused by right-of-way trees will be explicitly assigned, a goal behind these changes.

This raises two important questions: Shouldn’t homeowners be formally notified of this new responsibility? And conversely, who is responsible for the public right-of-way when there is no obstruction?
California State Streets and Highways Code section 5610 states that landowners are responsible for maintaining sidewalks in safe and unobstructed condition, even if the sidewalk is publicly owned. This implies landscaping in the right-of-way is also the homeowner's responsibility.

Placing the definitions of ‘City Tree’ and ‘Public Right-of-Way Tree’ in 23.50 Trees would allow 23.51 to remain focused on obstruction, while making clear that homeowners are responsible for maintaining adjacent rights-of-way. Either way, this represents a significant change for all residents.

I hope this helps.

Janet Wilson
619.733.1428
The term “Public Right-of-Way Tree” is awkward. Many municipal codes use “Street Tree” or “Parkway Tree” to describe trees in the right-of-way maintained by adjacent property owners.

City Council Policy 110 addresses private encroachments into city rights-of-way, stating:
“There are numerous circumstances in Del Mar where an improved (paved) section of a City rightof-way is narrower than the width of the right-of-way itself. This results in an area of unimproved right-of-way adjacent to private property. In many cases, the owner of the adjacent property, or designee, proposes to install landscaping and other landscape-related improvements in the unimproved portion of the right-of-way. This has the beneficial effect of beautifying the area adjacent to the paved roadway, without the City having to bear the costs for installing or maintaining the improvements. These are generally considered to be an appropriate use of a rightof-way but still subject to review under the Encroachment Permit process.” https://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/1956/110-Private-Encroachments-Into-CityRights-of-Way-PDF

Del Mar Chapter 23.28 – Encroachment Permits
C. Encroachment shall mean development or use of any portion of a City Right-of-Way or Easement in a manner other than its intended use. Encroachment shall include, but not be limited to, any of the following:
101 October 6, 2025 Item 8 102 October 20, 2025 Item 13 3 2. Planting of any tree, shrub, grass or other growing thing within a City Right-of-Way or Easement;
https://library.municode.com/ca/del_mar/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT23BUCO_CH23.28E NPE
Cut-and-paste definitions are maintenance-intensive. Therefore, if 23.51 does require a definition of City Tree, it should be
(E) City Tree - see 23.50.020 City Tree
102 October 6, 2025 Item 8 103 October 20, 2025 Item 13 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

ATTACHMENT H
104 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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 8 105 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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 8 106 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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 8 107 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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 8 108 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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 8 109 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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 8 110 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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 8 111 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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 8 112 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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 8 113 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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 8 114 October 20, 2025 Item 13
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 8 115 October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Kevin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 4:24 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Del Mar TSVS Ordinance
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,
The proposed amendments to the existing TSVS go too far. These proposed amendments will erode much of the privacy we have and deserve as neighbors. A broad code based reform is not necessary to solve the issues a few neighbors may have with each other. It is likely to be weaponized, leading to more disputes the city will have to resolve, rather than neighbors figuring it out on their own. The future litigation responsibilities should not be taken lightly as an unrecognized cost this city will bear.

Further, the ordinance goes to protect all views, versus primary views. This is also a rather broad and ambiguous, which may be the design of staff, but is also ripe for litigation.

This proposed ordinance appears to be crafted for the few at the expense of the rest. We hope you strongly oppose the ordinance and send a message to staff that this type of proposal falls well short of what should be brought in front of this council.

Kevin and Juliet Nolen
858-342-3895
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
116 October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 5:28 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; John Spelich; Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk; Terry Gaasterland Cc: Janet Wilson
Subject: Item 8 City Council Meeting - Sunshine & Shade Study Requirement Attachments: SunshineArea.xlsx
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 Councilmembers,
Plentiful sunlight in a home contributes to its economic value and comfortable enjoyment. Sunlight surrounds us daily, shaping the quality of our life, supporting health, and sustaining gardens; therefore, I am very pleased to see the importance of Sunlight acknowledged in this rewrite.

By definition, Del Mar has always protected both direct and indirect Sunlight:

23.51.020 Definitions (X)
Sunlight shall mean the availability of direct and/or indirect sunlight to a room or rooms, or to the existing Solar Energy System of an Applicant's primary residence.

Application Requirements for Sunlight Obstruction
A Shade Study is a new requirement when submitting a Sunlight application:

23.51.040(A)(e):

Shade study demonstrating the amount and duration of the alleged Obstruction of Sunlight from a PLA (PLA should be changed to room or rooms?)
or Solar Energy System (for Applications alleging Obstruction of Sunlight only); Since no other “View” city requires a Shade Study, is entirely new territory. What exactly is a Shade Study?
A shade study, also known as a shadow study, is an analysis of how sunlight and shadows interact with a building or site at different times of the day and year. It helps architects, urban planners, and landscape designers understand how sunlight will affect a space, optimize building design, and ensure comfortable outdoor environments.

Requiring residents to provide technical studies, such as a shade study, places an unreasonable burden on applicants.

And most homeowners would never expect to document “before” conditions or hire consultants to prove a loss of Sunlight.

Across Del Mar, many have seen their Sunlight access disappear after a sudden growth spurt or diminish gradually over time with no practical recourse.

In that context, a 10-year look-back limit feels inequitable. 117 October 20, 2025 Item 13
2 A fair approach would allow relief for any homeowner with demonstrably obstructed Sunlight (assuming no privacy issues).

Note: per this rewrite, a Sunlight application does not require a photograph (meaning a photograph is specifically for a Scenic View claim).

Findings for Sunlight Obstruction

23.51.060(C)(5)
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;

23.51.060(C)(6)
Based on a review of the photographic evidence (not required) and exhibit submitted by the Applicant, the Subject Tree(s) cast(s) shadows greater than fifty percent (50%) of the total window glazing of a room or rooms within the Applicant’s primary residence at any time between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., Pacific Standard Time (PST);
On our overcast coastal days (May Gray and June Gloom), the diffused ambient light can be further diminished by tall trees and dense vegetation, leaving interiors noticeably darker. Overgrowth also degrades low-angle light in late afternoon and at sunset throughout the year. Excessive vegetation will filter light, negatively impacting daily livability and enjoyment, which is precisely what this ordinance aims to protect.

By definition, Del Mar protects both direct and indirect Sunlight and a Shade Study overlooks qualitative impacts, including how rooms actually feel and function. In cases without privacy concerns, a Reviewing Authority should be able to determine an unreasonable blockage of Sunlight without too much difficulty.

I hope these observations ensure that Sunlight access remains a clear, equitable, and enforceable right for every Del Mar resident.

Thank you for your continued attention to this important revision.

Janet Wilson
619.733.1428
Note: Sunlight should not be limited to existing Solar Energy Systems. If someone wants to install a new system and there are no alternative sitings, they should be allowed access to Sunlight (assuming there are no privacy issues).

Note: And why not expand to include patios and other outdoor entertainment areas (assuming there are no privacy issues).

Berkeley addresses Sunlight in their definition of Obstruction:
"Obstruction" means any substantial blocking or diminishment of a view from a structure lawfully used as a dwelling or access to sunlight to the real property which is attributable to the growth, maintenance or location of tree(s).” Perhaps Del Mar follows that lead to update the definition of Obstruction:

Obstruction shall mean any substantial blocking or diminishment of Scenic Views from the Primary Living area and/or access to Sunlight to the real property that is attributable to the growth, improper maintenance or location of a Tree or Vegetation. 118 October 20, 2025 Item 13
Del Mar Yes (single) portion
J.Primary Living Area shall mean that (single) portion of a residence from which a Scenic View is observed most often by the occupants and guests at the residence. The determination of Primary Living Area is to be made on a case-by case basis and shall be consistent with any prior determinations made by the City. https://library.municode.com/ca/del_mar/c
odes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT23BUCO_
CH23.51TRSCVISU_23.51.020DE
Sunlight shall mean the availability of direct or indirect Sunlight to the Primary Living Area or to the existing solar energy system of a residence.

Alameda County Yes portion or portions of a residence

1.The county recognizes that residents and property owners cherish their outward views from the Hayward Hills, and that they also cherish the benefits of plentiful sunlight reaching their buildings and yards. The county recognizes that both outward views and plentiful sunlight reaching property contribute greatly to the quality of life in the Fairview area, and promote the general welfare of the entire community. "Sunlight" means the availability of direct or indirect sunlight to the primary living area of a residence.

Primary living area means the portion or portions of a residence from which a view is observed most often by the occupants relative to other portions of the residence. https://library.municode.com/ca/alameda_c
ounty/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=T
IT6HESA_CH6.66VISUAIDI_6.66.020DE
"Sunlight" means the availability of direct or indirect sunlight to the primary living area of a residence.

Belvedere Yes parcel of real property
B. To prevent the diminution in enjoyment and value of private property caused by the growth of trees, shrubs or hedges that unreasonably obstruct the view from or sunlight reaching such property; I. “Unreasonable Obstruction” as used in this Chapter means an obstruction of a Preexisting View that impairs the economic value, use or comfortable enjoyment of a parcel of real property and ...

F. Hedges—Height Limitations. No hedge, as defined in Section 8.28.020, shall be permitted to grow to a height exceeding the authorized height of fences as set forth in this Code, if in so doing such hedge interferes with the view from or sunlight reaching any parcel of private property in the City. (Ord. 98-8 § 1, 1998.) https://belvedere.municipal.codes/Code/8.2

8.020
Not defined
Berkeley Yes
view from a structure
access to sunlight to the real property

6. "Obstruction" means any substantial blocking or diminishment of a view from a structure lawfully used as a dwelling or access to sunlight to the real property which is attributable to the growth, maintenance or location of tree(s).
https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/12.4

5.020
Not defined
Clyde Hill WA Yes
areas
which may include both interior and exterior spaces
“Living and entertainment areas” means areas from which a view is observed most often by the occupants relative to other portions of the residence, which may include both interior and exterior spaces. The determination of living and entertainment areas is to be made on a case-by-case basis by the hearing examiner following receipt of evidence from the complainant, but in any case shall not include bathrooms, hallways, garages, closets, and laundry rooms.

That the view from or the sunlight reaching living and entertainment areas of the home is now unreasonably obstructed by a tree ...
https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Clyde
Hill/#!/ClydeHill17/ClydeHill1738.html#17.3

8.020
Not defined
Contra Costa Yes
primary living areas
or
exterior deck attached to a residence
View means a range of sight including pleasing vistas or scenes from the primary living areas of a residence or from an exterior deck attached to a residence.
https://library.municode.com/ca/contra_co
sta_county/codes/ordinance_code?nodeId=
TIT8ZO_DIV816TR_CH816-
2TROBVIOVCODI_816-2.208DE
Not defined
Corte Madera Yes
point(s)
portion or portions

15.50.160 - Standards for evaluation of claims.

In determining the extent to which the complainant may exercise his/her view and/or sunlight rights otherwise established hereunder, the following factors shall be considered:
(1)The vantage point(s) from which the view is obtained; (1)"Active use area" means the most frequently actively used portion or portions of a residential building or site, or nonresidential building, from which views and/or sunlight are available. (22)"Sunlight" means the availability of direct or indirect sunlight to the active use area of a building and/or property.
https://library.municode.com/ca/corte_mad
era/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT15BU
CO_CH15.50TR_IIIVISUPR_15.50.160STEVCL
In "TREES"ordinance (22)"Sunlight" means the availability of direct or indirect sunlight to the active use area of a building and/or property.

Hillsboro Yes parcel of property
No tree, grove, shrub or other vegetation shall be planted, maintained or permitted to grow upon any parcel of property in the town in such manner as to obstruct unreasonably the view from, or the sunlight reaching, any other adjoining parcel of property.
https://library.municode.com/ca/hillsborou
gh/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT8
HESA_CH8.28VOREDIRETRVI_8.28.020UNO

BPREFCETE
Not defined
Kensington Yes
primary living areas
or
exterior deck attached to a residence
View means a range of sight including pleasing vistas or scenes from the primary living areas of a residence or from an exterior deck attached to a residence.
https://library.municode.com/ca/contra_co
sta_county/codes/ordinance_code?nodeId=
TIT8ZO_DIV816TR_CH816-
2TROBVIOVCODI_816-2.208DE
Not defined
Laguna Beach Yes viewing locations or areas
The city council recognizes that residents, property owners and businesses cherish their outward views, and that they also cherish the benefits of plentiful sunlight reaching their buildings and yards.

Pre-existing views means one or more visual scenes from selected viewing locations or areas that are not significantly impaired by vegetation and that existed on or after either the date of acquisition of the claimant's property or November 4, 2003 (the effective date of Ordinance No. 1430 relating to view preservation), whichever is earlier.
https://ecode360.com/42893181
Not defined
Los Altos Hills Yes portion or portions of a residence
The Town recognizes that residents cherish their outward views from the hills, and that they also cherish the benefits of plentiful sunlight reaching their buildings and yards.

Primary living area means the portion or portions of a residence from which a view is observed most often by the occupants relative to other portions of the residence. The determination of primary living area is to be made on a case-by-case basis.

Landscape screening means a method by which trees and vegetation are planted in order to separate and partially obstruct the view of adjacent and nearby structures and properties from one another. Landscape screening shall generally not exceed the height of the ridgeline of the primary structure. https://ecode360.com/43815153
Sunlight means the availability of direct or indirect sunlight to the primary living area of a residence.
119 October 20, 2025 Item 13
Martinez Yes
those portions of a residence
primarily living areas
G."Primary living areas" are those portions of a residence from which observed most often by the occupants relative to other portions of the residence. Primary living areas include decks or other permanent, humanmade structures (1) immediately adjacent to the main residence and (2) occupied or regularly used by the occupants of the main residence. The determination of primarily living areas is made on a case-by-case basis; R."Unreasonable obstruction" means the obstruction of a view or sunlight, or both, which is determined to be unreasonable applying the criteria set forth in Section 8.13.040. An unreasonable obstruction shall be further defined as an impairment, diminution, obscuring, interference and/or blocking of a view from or sunlight to a primary living area which, when analyzed using the criteria set forth in Section 8.13.040, is determined to (1) materially and adversely affect said views and/or sunlight and (2) so affect views and/or sunlight which have a character or quality which outweighs the benefits derived by the tree(s) which are causing the obstruction; https://librarystage.municode.com/ca/marti
nez/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO
OR_TIT8HESA_CH8.13VISUPR_8.13.020DE
Not defined
Orinda Yes the portion of a residence
outward views from their properties and the benefits of plentiful sunlight reaching their buildings and yards "Sunlight" means the availability of direct or indirect sunlight to the primary living area of a residence.

Primary living area means the portion of a residence from which a view is observed most often by the occupants relative to other portions of the residence. The determination of primary living area is made on a case-by-case basis.

No person may maintain a tree which unreasonably obstructs the view from, or sunlight reaching, the primary living area or active use area of any other parcel of property within the city. https://library.municode.com/ca/orinda/co
des/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17ZO_
CH17.22VIPR_17.22.4DE
"Sunlight" means the availability of direct or indirect sunlight to the primary living area of a residence.

Rolling Hills Estates Yes
one common interior or exterior space
Properties which have more than one unique or different view shall be permitted to apply for preservation or restoration of one additional view "Sunlight" means the availability or access to light from the sun across property lines.

In addition, a view seeker may only seek to preserve or restore a view from one common interior or exterior space used by the view seeker, including but not limited to, the living, family, and dining rooms, rooms that have features such as picture windows, sliding glass doors, and French doors, and common exterior areas such as patios, balconies, decks, pool areas, and gazebos designed to take advantage of views. Properties which have more than one unique or different view shall be permitted to apply for preservation or restoration of one additional view.
https://library.municode.com/ca/rolling_hill
s_estates/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeI
d=TIT17ZO_CH17.55VIPR_17.55.040VIEQCL
LI
"Sunlight" means the availability or access to light from the sun across property lines.

San Francisco Yes available to the garden or home
A complaining party who believes in good faith that the growth, maintenance or location of a tree on the private property of a tree owner diminishes the beneficial use or economic value of his or her property because the tree interferes with the access to sunlight or views naturally accruing to the property, shall notify the tree owner in writing of these concerns.
(2) The extent to which the tree diminishes the amount of sunlight available to the garden or home of the complaining party.
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san
_francisco/latest/sf_publicworks/0-0-0-
4303
Santa Barbara Yes
real property
point(s)
Complainant. Any property owner, group of property owners (or an authorized agent thereof) who allege that tree(s)/vegetation located within the immediate vicinity of their property as set forth in Section 22.76.040 is causing unreasonable obstruction of the view or blocking the sunlight benefiting the real property of the Complainant.

The vantage point(s) in the Complainant's home from which the view or sunlight is obtained or received; https://ecode360.com/44108725
Sunlight. The availability or access to light from the sun across property lines.

Sausalito Yes
primary living areas
property
V. “View” means a vista of San Francisco-Richardson Bay, neighboring communities, surrounding hills or a nearby or distant wooded area from the primary living areas of the home.

A. Unreasonable Obstruction of View or Sunlight Prohibited. A tree, shrub, hedge, or other vegetation shall not be maintained in such manner as to unreasonably obstruct the view from or the sunlight reaching other property.
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Sausal
ito/html/Sausalito11/Sausalito1112.html
Not defined
Tiburon Yes portion or portions
"Sunlight" means the availability of direct or indirect sunlight to the primary living area of a residence. "Primary living area" means the portion or portions of a residence from which a view is observed most often by the occupants relative to other portions of the residence. The determination of primary living area is to be made on a case-by-case basis.
cherish their outward views from the Tiburon Peninsula, and that they also cherish the benefits of plentiful sunlight reaching their buildings and yards.
https://library.municode.com/ca/tiburon/co
des/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITIVLAIM
US_CH15VISUOBTR_15-2DE
"Sunlight" means the availability of direct or indirect sunlight to the primary living area of a residence.

Ventura County Yes benefiting the real property
J. COMPLAINANT. Any property owner, group of property owners (or an authorized agent thereof) who allege that tree(s)/vegetation located within the immediate vicinity of their property as set forth in Section 8.900.040 is causing unreasonable obstruction of the view or blocking the sunlight benefiting thereal property of the Complainant.
https://www.cityofventura.ca.gov/Documen
tCenter/View/7484/2014-002-View-DisputeOrdinance
SUNLIGHT. The availability or access to light from the sun across property lines.

Beverly Hills NO
There may be one or more viewing areas
areas
VIEWING AREA: An area from which a protectable view is assessed, located on the level pad that contains the primary residential structure. A viewing area shall be a room of the primary residential structure (excluding hallways, laundry rooms, closets and garages), or a patio, deck or landscaped area adjacent to the primary residential structure that does not extend beyond the level pad. There may be one or more viewing areas on a property. The reviewing authority shall establish the viewing area or areas as part of its finding that the view owner has a protectable view. The reviewing authority may designate a location as a viewing area if, in the opinion of the reviewing authority, an average resident would often observe a protectable view from that area. (Ord. 11-O-2616, eff. 1-6-2012)
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/bev
erlyhillsca/latest/beverlyhills_ca/0-0-0-
20406

NO SUNLIGHT PROTECTION
Culver City NO the portion or portions
PRIMARY LIVING AREA. The portion or portions of a residence from which a view is observed most often by the occupants relative to other portions of the residence. The determination of PRIMARY LIVING AREA is to be made on a case-by-case basis.
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/culv
ercity/latest/culvercity_ca/0-0-0-7539

NO SUNLIGHT PROTECTION
120 October 20, 2025 Item 13
El Cerrito NO the portion or portions
Primary living area means the portion or portions of the primary residence structure from which a view is observed. The determination of primary living area is to be made on a case-by-case basis, by mutual agreement or by a mediator, arbitrator or judge.
https://library.municode.com/ca/el_cerrito/
codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT10P
UPEMOWE_CH10.90OBVITRPRPR_10.90.13
0DE

NO SUNLIGHT PROTECTION
Malibu No only one primary view area
"Primary view area" means that portion of a residence within the Malibu Country Estates subdivision (excluding bathrooms, closets, garages and hallways) from which the primary view is observed. A property shall have only one primary view area.
https://ecode360.com/44338396

NO SUNLIGHT PROTECTION
Oakland NO property
A.Initial Reconciliation. A claimant who believes in good faith that the growth, maintenance, or location of trees situated on the property of another diminishes the beneficial use, economic value and enjoyment of views naturally accruing to the claimant's property may notify the tree owner in writing of such concerns. https://library.municode.com/ca/oakland/c
odes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT15BU
CO_CH15.52VI_15.52.090PR

NO SUNLIGHT PROTECTION
Rancho Palos Verdes NO area of a structure or that area of a lot

15.Viewing area means that area of a structure (excluding bathrooms, hallways, garages or closets) or that area of a lot (excluding the setback areas) where the owner and city determine the best and most important view exists. In structures, the finished floor elevation of any viewing area must be at or above existing grade adjacent to the exterior wall of the part of the building nearest to said viewing area. https://library.municode.com/ca/rancho_pa
los_verdes/codes/code_of_ordinances?nod
eId=TIT17ZO_ARTIREDI_CH17.02SIMIRERSDI
_17.02.040VIPRRE

NO SUNLIGHT PROTECTION
Solana Beach NO area of the structure or lot
best and most important view exists
I. “Viewing area” shall be that area of the structure (excluding bathrooms, hallways, garages or closets) or lot (excluding the building setback areas) where the view assessment committee, or the city council on appeal, determines the best and most important view exists.
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Solan
aBeach/html/SolanaBeach17/SolanaBeach1
763.html

NO SUNLIGHT PROTECTION
Torrance
No (defines
Sunlight not
referenced)
one common interior or developed exterior space
A "view" shall be limited to one common interior or developed exterior space used by the view seeker, including but not limited to the living, family, and dining rooms, bedrooms, rooms that have features such as picture windows, sliding glass doors, and French doors, and common exterior areas such as patios, balconies, decks, pool areas, and gazebos designed to take advantage of views. https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Torra
nce/html/Torrance09/Torrance0902.html#9

2.41 NO SUNLIGHT PROTECTION
Westlake Village No only one primary view area
"Primary view area" means that portion of a residence or nonresidential building (excluding bathrooms, closets, garages and hallways) from which the best view is observed by the occupants. A property shall have only one primary view area.
https://library.municode.com/ca/westlake_
village/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=
ART4PUPE_CH4.11VIPR_4.11.030DE

NO SUNLIGHT PROTECTION
121 October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Susan Schneider <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 4, 2025 7:31 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Re: TSVS Ordinance changes
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
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.

Dear City Council,
As 35-year residents of Olde Del Mar, we have seen many changes, both good and bad, in our beauƟful community.

But it has mostly retained its charm and uniqueness by preserving the incredible natural beauty around us.

And, we have always been focused on the creatures we share our paradise with- ocean life, birds, bees, rabbits, buƩerflies and more.

Why in heaven’s name would we put buildings’ views as a priority over all our gorgeous greenery and the habitats and beauty they provide?
We are a community of environmentalists, not developers, aren’t we? Do we want to look like Carmel Valley? Will we change what aƩracts people here in the first place?
A hard no on the changes to the TSVS Ordinance. We have enough ways for neighbors to compromise.

Susan & Mark Schneider
Luneta Drive
122 October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Payson Stevens <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 6, 2025 8:15 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Terry Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk; John Spelich Subject: RED DOT LETTER: Tree ordinance and Scenic Views 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 the Honorable Mayor and Members of the Del Mar City Council, Subject: Support for TSVS Ordinance (A25-001) with Essential Inclusion of Property Privacy Dear Mayor and Council Members:

My wife and I have been Del Mar homeowners and residents for many decades and appreciate the need for balanced ordinances on views.

In general, we support the goals of the updated Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight (TSVS) Ordinance. Your recognition that views, sunlight, and a healthy urban forest contribute to Del Mar’s quality of life and economic value is appreciated.

However, we urge you to explicitly and equally protect property privacy within the final ordinance.

As the findings already note, trees and vegetation provide crucial visual and auditory privacy for residents. This landscaping often serves as the only essential barrier protecting our private living areas from direct view by neighbors or public spaces.

The current focus on view restoration must not inadvertently force residents to sacrifice this necessary privacy. Without a dedicated standard in DMMC Chapter 23.51, view restoration for one property may result in the complete and/or unreasonable loss of privacy for another.

We all know how views can become contentious issues and create conflicts between neighbors and this privacy protection based on vegetation and trees must be included.

Another important omission is protection against impacts from neighboring jurisdictions. Del Mar residents living below San Diego's Del Mar Heights face an acute regulatory imbalance: we are held to strict local controls, yet San Diego's zoning permits denser, taller development directly above us, compromising our protected views and privacy without recourse. Our City Council must proactively bridge this gap. We urge the Council to implement inter-jurisdictional agreements or 123 October 20, 2025 Item 13
2 formal advocacy mechanisms to ensure Del Mar citizens' protected rights are respected by San Diego's development policies, preventing unilateral harm to our community's comfortable enjoyment and property value.

We therefore respectfully request that the final ordinance include clear provisions to:

1. Protect Property Privacy: Formally recognize and protect property privacy as an interest that must be weighed equally with view restoration during any TSVS review.

2. Ensure Balanced Resolution: Require a balancing test in dispute resolution, ensuring view restoration for one property does not unreasonably compromise the established, reasonable privacy of the property providing the vegetation.

3. Address External Zoning Impacts: Implement inter-jurisdictional agreements or formal advocacy mechanisms to protect Del Mar citizens' views and privacy rights from adverse development policies in neighboring jurisdictions like San Diego's Del Mar Heights.

Including privacy as an explicit element will ensure a fair and holistic regulatory framework for all Del Mar residents.

Thank you for your consideration.

Please confirm the receipt of this email and include it in your upcoming/October deliberations on TSVS Ordinance (A25-001).

Sincerely,
Payson R. Stevens
Kamla K. Kapur
124 October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Ann Dempsey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 6, 2025 10:11 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 8 - Changes to Del Mar Tree Ordinance
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.

Item 8 on Agenda for meeting on October 6, 2025
To the Members of Del Mar City Council
I urge you to reject the changes to the current Del Mar Tree Ordinance. The Torrey Pines are Del Mar’s treasure.

Ann Dempsey
owner of 1250 Crest Road
125 October 20, 2025 Item 13
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: ulla rang <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 6, 2025 5:18 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: TSVS amendment, Oct 20 City Council meeting
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear CIty Council,
I support the red dots of Michael Deftos and Janet Wilson.

Also the letter by Ally MacNally has to be taken into consideration. Magnificent, old trees should not lightly be taken down for someone's slight convenience without it for example disturbing sewage (roots), breaking up foundations or having grown out of proportions and now hinder access to garages etc. An absolutely beautiful tree was just taken down in the south/east corner of 10th and Stratford. Everyone loved that magnificent tree, including the neighborhood owl who sat there every night, calling us with its hooing nightly, reminding us of the beautiful earth we are living on. I cried the day I came home and that tree was gone. Who could do such a thing? That tree bothered nobody, nobody! No one's view was restored, no one's sewage worked better or no one's access to anywhere became better. To remove that tree was an abomination and I wish that whoever that removed that tree would have had to apply for permission and see if there was a different solution to whatever the problem that tree could have caused.

I am however one hundred percent behind ruling against people planting 60-80 foot tall protected trees around their property for their own highly unnecessary 60 foot privacy tree wall, taking every neighbor's view. That is just shameful and should not be allowed.

At the same time, I'm a little taken aback by the suggestion that a regular hedge can only be 6 foot tall.

Are people now supposed to cut down their gorgeous hedges that again is bothering no one and have been there for decades? That is just ridiculous. Especially now with the ADU's that doesn't have to follow the same setback as regular homes, a hedge is the only way to protect your backyard from being the window entertainment for the ADU that now is looming over your backyard. If I understand things correctly, this suggested mandatory hedge height is not going into this amendment, and I hope it never will.

Thank you for all that you are doing.

SIncerely,
Camilla Rang
126 October 20, 2025 Item 13
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Jean Crutchfield, Associate Planner
Karen Brindley, Planning and Community Development Director Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: October 20, 2025
SUBJECT: Initial Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of Setback Seawall Permit (SSP25-002)
Project Applicant/Property Owner: Oceans Investments LLC

Project Appellant: Steven Mack
Project Location: 2936 Camino Del Mar (APN: 299-020-12-00)

REQUESTED ACTION/ RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of application Setback Seawall Permit (SSP25-002) and not set the appeal for a de novo hearing.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is an initial consideration hearing pursuant to Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section 1.12.040 to determine whether to set the subject appeal for a de novo public hearing.

On August 12, 2025, the Planning Commission (PC) conditionally approved application SSP25-002 submitted by Oceans Investments LLC (“Applicant”) to remove an existing nonconforming seawall, rock revetment (rip rap) and wooden stairs and construct a new seawall designed and located in conformance with standards of DMMC Chapter 30.50 Beach Overlay Zone and the City of Del Mar Local Coastal Program (LCP) at 2936 Camino Del Mar in the R1-5 Beach Zone.

The new seawall would span the full width of the property (total length of 80-feet) and would align with the landward (easterly) side of the Shoreline Protection Area (SPA) line. The new seawall would not encroach into the SPA (which is the area generally known as the public beach), and therefore, the project does not require mitigation or payment of a user fee.
1 October 20, 2025 Item 14
City Council Agenda Report
Initial Consideration of Appeal of SSP25-002
October 20, 2025