San Clemente council extends hearing, directs HOA to pursue tree-height enforcement without needing view-obstruction finding

San Clemente City Council continued a contentious public hearing on March 18 over whether the Broadmoor San Clemente Community Association had failed to enforce 17-foot height limits for landscaping on Calle Delicata and directed the association to proceed with abatement based on prima facie violation rather than waiting for proof of a view obstruction.

The council voted to continue the hearing to Sept. 16, 2025 and to “direct the Broadmoor Association to abate the violations prima facie, not requiring a determination that a Felicidad homeowner’s view is obstructed,” a motion the council approved unanimously.

Why this matters: The dispute pits Delicata homeowners (who say a written 1974 condition of approval limited landscaping heights to 17 feet) and the homeowners on the slope below (most members of Broadmoor HOA) against each other. Felicidad homeowners say Broadmoor has long declined to enforce the height restriction; Broadmoor argues it must follow its established enforcement procedures, including alternative dispute processes, and target only view‑blocking vegetation.

City staff opened the hearing with a summary that the matter was continued from Nov. 19, 2024 and that the City had offered the HOA time to pursue its enforcement process but believed the HOA’s procedures unnecessarily require a subjective finding of “view obstruction.” Adam Atamian, the city’s community development director, told the council city staff recommended (1) a continuance to allow the HOA process to proceed and (2) direction that the HOA need not show a separate view obstruction to abate a 17-foot height violation.

Broadmoor association counsel and board members told the council the association is following its statutory enforcement chain and requested time to complete alternative dispute resolution, arbitration and the HOA’s long-standing procedures before the city intervenes. David Hickey, attorney for the association, said, “The association has certain statutory requirements that must be met in enforcement … it’s not something we could snap a finger and cut down this tree.”

Felicidad homeowners pushed the council for city enforcement. Riva Buck, who said she represented several Felicidad residents, told the council, “This case is about enforcing the 17‑foot height restriction as required by the city’s condition of approval, which the council reviewed and unanimously affirmed.” Other speakers described their views being blocked by tall palms and other trees and urged the council to act rather than leave enforcement solely to the HOA.

During public comment dozens of residents from both Broadmoor and Calle Felicidad described decades of disagreement. Several Felicidad homeowners described prior city involvement in the original approvals and said that their predecessors accepted concessions (regrading slopes, waiving sidewalks) in return for the 17‑foot landscaping limit. Broadmoor residents and board members countered that the association enforces its CC&Rs, that enforcement must be evenhanded across the HOA’s roughly 201 homes, and that a forced rush to cut or remove mature landscape could denude neighborhoods and prompt costly litigation.

Council discussion emphasized avoiding a costly court battle while ensuring the city’s rules are applied. Councilmembers repeatedly urged all parties to negotiate where possible but also signaled willingness to step in if enforcement does not proceed. Several councilmembers said they believed the plain language of the CC&Rs establishes a height limit and that the city has authority, under the documents it reviewed, to take action if the HOA does not.

Formal action: The council’s motion—which was introduced during the March 18 meeting—found that Broadmoor Association had initiated enforcement efforts, but the council continued the matter to Sept. 16, 2025 “to allow the Broadmoor Association’s process to continue according to their specified timelines” while instructing the HOA that abatement should be based on a prima facie 17‑foot violation and not conditioned on a separate view‑obstruction finding. The motion passed 5‑0. Staff and the HOA were ordered to report progress to the city ahead of the September date.

What the record shows and does not: City staff and the council repeatedly described the height standard in the CC&Rs as a categorical 17‑foot limit for landscaping on Calle Delicata; Broadmoor’s counsel and board said their long‑established enforcement process includes a view‑obstruction step and alternative dispute resolution and asked for time to pursue that process. The Superior Court ruling cited in public comment found that certain non‑HOA neighbors lacked private standing in an earlier case, a point Broadmoor representatives raised in arguing against immediate city takeover of enforcement. However, city staff noted the CC&Rs contain language that would allow the city to assume enforcement rights if the HOA fails to act.

What happens next: The council’s continuation requires the Broadmoor Association to proceed with its enforcement steps and report back; the city’s direction that view obstruction is not required to enforce the 17‑foot limit is intended to speed resolution. The council left open the option of assuming enforcement if the HOA does not make measurable progress.

Key quote: “We are the victims exposing us to further delays, uncertainty, litigation, liability,” Paul Buck, a Felicidad homeowner, told the council. “The council has the power and the standing. Please use it.”

Background: The dispute traces to a 1974 condition of approval and subsequent recorded CC&Rs that, according to city staff and multiple commenters, limited plantings and structures on Calle Delicata to 17 feet. The issue was the subject of earlier council consideration in 2018 and 2020 and a Nov. 19, 2024 hearing that led to this continued agenda item.

The council’s ordered continuation to Sept. 16 means the public hearing will remain open and the city will monitor HOA enforcement steps and any follow‑up communications between staff, the HOA and Felicidad homeowners.

Ending note: Both sides urged a negotiated outcome to avoid expensive litigation. The council’s direction removed the requirement for a separate view‑obstruction finding and placed the next formal check‑in with the council on the September agenda.