Del Mar City Council
April 4, 2022

BACKGROUND:

The site is located in the R1-10 zone and is approximately 7,015 square feet in size, and slopes from east to west and south to north. The existing (building) pad of the lot is approximately 7.7 foot lower than the highest adjacent elevation of 8th Street. There is an approximately 8.5 foot difference in grade between the subject property and that of the neighboring property to the east.

Both vehicular and pedestrian access to the lot is be taken from 8th Street.

ANALYSIS:

Project Description:

The project includes a request to construct a new, two-story, single-dwelling unit with an attached two-car garage, second-story deck, and associated landscape and hardscape improvements.

Additional site improvements would include new fencing, walls, in-ground spa, and air conditioners.

Summary of the applicant’s proposal:

Garage 400 square feet
First Floor 899 square feet
Second Floor 696 square feet
Total FAR 2,000 square feet (25%)
FAR exempt outdoor living areas include the following:

Upper Level Deck 679 square feet (uncovered)
First Level Patio (north) 300 square feet (covered)
First Level Patio (South) 35 square feet (covered by 3’ eave above) Entry 43 square feet (covered by 3’ eave above)
Total: 1,057 square feet (378 square feet covered*)
Standards R1-10 Zone Project
Min. lot size 10,000 sq. ft. 7,015 sq. ft.

Front yard setback 20 ft. 20 ft.

Rear yard setback 25 ft. 25 ft.
6 ft. 9 in. to built-in spa and
equipment*
Street side yard (North) 7.5 ft. 7.5 ft.

Interior side yard (South) 7.5 ft. 7.5 ft.

FAR 25% 25%
Max. lot coverage 40%. 28%
2 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 5 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 118 April 4, 2022 Item 10

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT: DRB21-018/ LC21-008/ CDP21-012
December 15, 2021

Height limitation 26 ft. 24 ft. 2 in.

Parking 3 spaces
(2 required in garage)
2 garage spaces
1 space on-site
*Spas and related mechanical equipment are permitted to be located in the rear yard setback pursuant to DMMC 30.86.200 M. 4.

Accessory Features
The following accessory features are proposed:
- A spa (49 sf ). The equipment in located on the north side of the pool with a maximum of 45 dB (specification on Sheet C1 of the plans).
- A built-in barbeque and counter at the second level deck - New air conditioning unit on the west side of the house with a maximum of 58 dB (specification on Sheet C1 of the plans)
- Beige brick walls and retaining walls (materials board included as Exhibit A) - New wood fence along west property line (6’ height maximum; measured from the west side of the fence facing the lower neighboring property) - New chain link fence along east property line (6’ height maximum; to be consistent with the existing chain link fence)
Exterior Lighting and Skylights:

The proposed exterior lighting would be downward directed, shielded bulbs, 2,700 Kelvins.

Proposed lighting specifications have been included on Sheet A8 of the plans.

Landscape/Hardscape:

The majority of the existing vegetation on-site is proposed to be replaced with all new landscaping except for the following:
o Two trees on the southwest side of the property- a Ngaio tree and a Weeping Fig tree; and o One lime tree at the northwest side of the property; and o The Eugenia trees lining the north and east property line 3 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 6 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 119 April 4, 2022 Item 10

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT: DRB21-018/ LC21-008/ CDP21-012
December 15, 2021

Proposed (new) trees and shrubs include the following:
• Two Desert Museum Palo Verde trees at the front of the property; one at the southwest corner and one at the southeast corner (mature height of 20-30’ maximum) • 17 California Buckwheat (mature height of 6.6’ maximum) • Fourteen Indian Laurel Fig trees (mature height of 25’ maximum) • Three Del Mar Manzanita trees (mature height of 8’ maximum) • Four Hoaryleaf Ceanothus (mature height of 14’ maximum) • One Lemonade Berry (mature height of 30’ maximum); and • Two Italian Buckthorn trees (mature height of 8’ maximum) In addition to the trees and shrubs listed above a variety of ground covers and low vegetation are proposed as shown on Sheet L2 of the plan set. The landscaped portion of the lot would be 3,515 square feet in area (50%).

Materials:

Proposed materials include a stucco exterior (grey), horizontal siding (grey), aluminum windows and doors (black), brick walls (beige), and copper trim. A materials board has been included as Exhibit A of this report.

Story Poles:

Story-poles illustrating the revised design were placed at the subject property on or before December 30, 2021 with certification provided of their placement in accordance with the approved story-pole plan. The story pole certification has been included as Exhibit B.

CITIZENS’ PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
Pursuant to DMMC Chapter 23.08, a Citizens’ Participation Program (CPP) shall be required (prior to formal submittal of an application for review by the City) for the any of the following: 1) a proposed 500 square-foot or larger (detached) structure; 2) the proposed addition of a new second story to a currently single-story structure; or 3) when the Planning Director, in consultation with the Chair of the Design Review Board, determines a project holds potential to cause adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The intent of the CPP process is to inform neighbors of a development proposal early in its design phase and to provide opportunities to meet with the applicant and discuss potential concerns (if any) prior to a formal hearing of the item. 4 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 7 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 120 April 4, 2022 Item 10

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT: DRB21-018/ LC21-008/ CDP21-012
December 15, 2021

The subject project proposes the construction of a new residential unit and so required completion of a CPP. In accordance with the requirements of Chapter 23.08, the Applicant held an Introductory Meeting on October 6, 2020 and a Project Proposal Meeting via Zoom on May 13, 2021.

Between the two meetings approximately twelve neighbors participated in the process.

According to the report, the majority of the participants expressed support and/or no concerns for the project. The following (summarized) comments were expressed at these meetings:
• Concerns from the neighbor to the east (635 Hoska) regarding views to the west (existing vegetation currently within this view), bulk and mass, and privacy o The Applicant has decided to push the new house as far south on the property as possible to provide privacy between neighboring properties and to avoid any potential views for neighboring properties to the east. Further, the property is allowed 2,000 square feet of floor area per the maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) designated for the R1-10 Zone, and the house has been designed to be exactly 2,000 square feet, or 25% FAR.
• A desire for the fencing along the west property line to be replaced right away to allow plants to start growing up on it.
o The Applicant has indicated they can replace the fencing early in the project timeline
The full CPP report outlining the concerns raised and response to concerns can be found attached as Exhibit C.

DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT DRB21-018
Coupled with any findings required for other requested entitlements, DMMC Chapters 23.08.072 through 23.08.080 (Design Review) stipulate seven sets of “Regulatory Conclusions” for the Design Review Board to address when reviewing an application for a Design Review Permit (DRB). Pursuant to Section 23.08.070, a project must be approved unless findings of fact (based upon information presented during a public hearing) can be made that the project as proposed will result in a conflict with one or more of the Regulatory Conclusions.

Following public input and staff review, proposed development has been revised with the “Potential Issue Areas” listed below comprising remaining areas where either a conflict with standards has been identified, and/or where potential further analysis by the Board is recommended.

Potential Issue Area #1: Neighborhood Compatibility- Two-Story Structure in One-Story Neighborhood:
5 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 8 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 121 April 4, 2022 Item 10

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT: DRB21-018/ LC21-008/ CDP21-012
December 15, 2021

Applicable Regulatory Conclusions:
• DMMC Section 23.08.077 (C) - Neighborhood scale
Related Design Guidelines:
• Design Guideline C.1 B. - Neighborhood Compatibility
• Design Guideline D.1 - Building Form and Massing
• Design Guideline D.4 C.- Architectural Features and Articulation Design Guidelines Staff Analysis:

The proposed redevelopment of the site would include the construction of a new two-story residence with attached garage and second story deck. Staff has analyzed the proposed project relative to the Regulatory Conclusions of the Design Review Ordinance (DRO), relevant Single-Family Design Guidelines, and the DRO Compliance letter from the applicant (Exhibit D).

Based on this analysis, it appears that the proposed home would be designed to include the following features:
• The proposed residence would be sited upon a raised building pad approximately 1- 2’ 8” feet above existing grade;
• A raised entry feature (raised 7.6’) that creates a half level between the first and second floors thus appearing to be two-story in volume;
• A 679 square-foot, second-story deck located over the west side of the house, where FAR limitations would otherwise preclude development;
• The majority of vertical structural massing has been located at the front of the property (21’ 2” from the front property line) which potentially adds to the apparent height of the structure; and • A location closer to the street than the average of lots in the vicinity.

These features cumulatively result in a new two-story structure which is potentially in conflict with DRO 23.08.077 C, in that the new house could have the appearance of being to be out of scale with other houses in the immediate neighborhood. Surrounding development within 300’ of the subject property, on the north side of 8th Street (houses on the south side of 8th Street are in the City of San Diego), is primarily one-story or where two-stories occur, they are setback significantly on the lot.
6 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 9 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 122 April 4, 2022 Item 10

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT: DRB21-018/ LC21-008/ CDP21-012
December 15, 2021

Staff has reviewed the historical documents related to properties on the north side of 8th Street, within 300’ and found the following:

Address Stories Front Yard
Setback
Building Height
428 8th Street One 29’ 15’ 6”
434 8th Street One 32’ 15’
442 8th Street Two 45’ 22’
450 8th Street One Not Known Not Known
612 8th Street One 27’ 10’ 8”
624 8th Street
(as proposed)
Two 21’ 2” 24’ 2”
635 Hoska Drive
(Garage and apartment
off 8th Street)*
Two Approximately
13’ 2”
Approximately 24’8”
Average One 27.8’ 18.6’
*The residence at 635 Hoska Drive fronts Hoska Drive so was not included in this analysis.

The structure on this property fronting 8th Street is a non-conforming (setback; 13’ where 20’ is required) 1,071 square-foot two story accessory structure including a garage with living space above that fronts 8th Street. It should be noted, however, that this existing accessory structure is significantly smaller than the proposed residence at 624 8th Street, is nonconforming in setback, and is not currently visible due to mature dense vegetation along the corner of 8th Street where it turns to meet Hoska Drive.

According to this analysis, the proposed house at 624 8th Street would be approximately 6.5’ closer to the front property line than the average front yard setback along 8th Street and approximately

5.5’ taller than the residences in the immediate neighborhood.

Design Guideline C.1 B. recommends that in cases where setbacks along a street front are varied in the neighborhood, new homes should match those of adjacent homes. Using this recommendation, the approximate front yard setback of the home to the west is 27’ and the required setback to the property at 635 Hoska Drive is 20’; the average between the two is 23.5’.

Design Guideline D.1 recommends avoiding massing that does not relate to the existing character of the neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board review the overall form and height of the proposed dwelling to determine whether, as designed, there is a conflict with the standard and whether modifications are necessary to effect development that is more compatible with neighboring structures.

Additionally, Design Guideline D.4 C. recommends that single-story design elements such as entries with two-story volume or heights should be avoided when out of character with neighboring development. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board review the overall form and height of the proposed entry feature to determine whether, as designed, there is a conflict with the standard 7 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 10 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 123 April 4, 2022 Item 10

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT: DRB21-018/ LC21-008/ CDP21-012
December 15, 2021

and whether modifications are necessary to effect development that is more compatible with neighboring structures.

Potential Issue Area #2: Grading
Applicable Regulatory Conclusion: DMMC Section 23.08.076 A. Preservation of Natural Topography by Minimizing Tree and Soil Removal
Related Design Guidelines:
• C.6 Retaining Walls and Fencing Design Guidelines
o Avoid retaining walls over 4 feet in height
o Avoid massive land alterations that require large retaining walls • C.4 Natural Topography Design Guidelines
Staff Analysis:

It is staff’s observation that, as designed, the project could be in conflict with DRO Section

23.08.076 A. “The natural state topography or landscaping is not being preserved insofar as practical, by minimizing tree and soil removal,” in that the proposed height of fill, grading, and retaining walls at the front of the garage ranges from 1-7.7 feet (7.7 at the entryway). Due to all the grading, most vegetation on-site and in the immediate right of way will be removed (some trees at the front to be replanted).

When considering this issue and whether a violation of the DRO is present on this project, staff suggests that the Board consider the submitted justification from the Applicant’s Engineer (Exhibit E) that the existing site is significantly lower than the street (approximately 7.7 feet at the highest point of the street) and so the fill grading is primarily related to improving on-site drainage so that water can more naturally flow to the street without having to use pumps which are unreliable during power outages.

Potential Issue Area #3: Neighbor Claims of Scenic View Blockage Applicable Regulatory Conclusion- DMMC Section 23.08.077 H. The proposed development unreasonably encroaches upon primary scenic views of neighboring property The neighbor to the east (635 Hoska Drive) raised concerns during the CPP process of Scenic View blockage from their Primary Living Area (Living Room). This concern seems to be primarily related to the existing vegetation (Eugenia Trees) along the eastern property line of 624 8th Street.

A separate Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Application (TVS21-001) was considered and 8 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 11 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 124 April 4, 2022 Item 10

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT: DRB21-018/ LC21-008/ CDP21-012
December 15, 2021

denied by the Planning Commission at their October 12, 2021 hearing as previously described in this report. An Initial Consideration for an appeal of the decision has been set for the December 13, 2021 City Council Hearing. Due to the existing condition of the vegetation at 624 8th Street, and based on the standing decision regarding the condition of the vegetation at the time of distribution of this report, there currently does not appear to be a scenic view present from the Primary Living Area of 635 Hoska Drive for which the project could have an impact on.

LAND CONSERVATION PERMIT LC21-008:

Pursuant to DMMC Chapter 23.33, proposed grading exceeding 25 cubic yards (cut or fill) outside of the footprint of any structure and/or grading that results in a permanent property elevation change exceeding 18 inches, shall require approve of a Land Conservation Permit (LC). The grading plan proposes 6 CY of cut (1’ maximum) and 499 CY of fill (7.6’ Maximum cut).

DMMC Section 23.33.040 stipulates that a request for a LC Permit shall be approved unless the Design Review Board finds that the request conflicts with one or more of the following seven findings:

1. The proposed excavation or grading project is not in conformance with the Del Mar Municipal Code requirements.

2. The proposed excavation or grading project will force the topography to be subservient to the development of the site

3. The proposed excavation or grading project will endanger steep slopes through undue increases in weight or retained water thereby creating conditions which encourage slippage.

4. The excavation or grading project will alter the natural formations unnecessarily.

5. The excavation or grading project does not provide for the restoration of the natural state of the site, to the degree feasible.

6. The excavation or grading project does not minimize the loss of major vegetation, to the degree feasible.

7. The excavation or grading project will create major interruptions of the natural drainage patterns.

The existing site slopes from an elevation of approximately 247 feet msl at the southeast corner down to 243 feet msl on the northwest portion of the lot (approximately a 4 foot difference). The project proposes raising the building pad from 243.3 to 245.9 except for at the entryway where the grade is proposed to be raised to 251.44 feet (fill of approximately 7.64 feet). According to the cut/fill exhibit the entirety of the lot is to be graded in some way and, because of this, all vegetation is also likely to 9 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 12 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 125 April 4, 2022 Item 10

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT: DRB21-018/ LC21-008/ CDP21-012
December 15, 2021

be replaced or replanted. Therefore, the Board should consider if the grading proposed is consistent with LC findings 2, 4, 5, and 6.

When considering this issue and whether a violation of the Land Conservation Ordinance is present on this project, staff suggests that the Board consider the submitted justification from the Applicant’s Engineer (Exhibit E) that the existing site is significantly lower than the street (approximately 7.7 feet at the highest point of the street) and so the fill grading is primarily related to improving on-site drainage so that water can more naturally flow up to the street without having to use pumps which are unreliable during power outages.

REQUIRED COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT/PROJECT’S CONSISTENCY WITH THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (CDP 21-012)
The project includes a new single-family residence within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, the project requires the receipt of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). The applicant has submitted the necessary materials to evaluate the project’s conformance with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) and the CDP application has been grouped together with the required DRB permit for review by the Board. The standards of review for the CDP application are the regulatory standards found in the LCP’s Implementing Ordinances, the entirety of which have been distributed to Board members under separate cover.

Staff has reviewed the application for consistency with the applicable provisions of the LCP, specifically the resource protection, avoidance of hazards and public access standards.

The project, as conditioned, has been found by staff to meet all of the applicable regulations. Staff is, therefore, recommending conditional approval of the CDP. Staff is also recommending that the required findings can be made by the Board to the effect that:

1. That the use for which the Coastal Development Permit is applied is permitted within the zone in which the property is located.

2. That the proposal meets the criteria of the applicable chapters of this Title.

3. That the granting of such Coastal Development Permit will be in conformity with the certified City of Del Mar Local Coastal Program.

4. That for all development proposals located seaward of the first public roadway, the proposed development is consistent with and implements the applicable requirements for provision of public access contained in this Title and in the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act.

5. That for all development proposals involving the construction or placement of a shoreline protection device, that the proposed development is consistent with and implements the applicable requirements of the Beach Overlay Zone and Setback 10 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 13 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 126 April 4, 2022 Item 10

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT: DRB21-018/ LC21-008/ CDP21-012
December 15, 2021

Seawall Zone provisions contained in this Title and is consistent with and implements the provisions of the Chapter Three Policies of California Coastal Act.

6. That the proposal is consistent with and implements the provisions of public view protection policies IV-22 through IV-27 of the City of Del Mar LCP Land Use Plan.

7. That for all development proposals on sites with identified wetland resources, that the proposed development is consistent with and implements the provisions of the Lagoon Overlay Zone as contained within the City of Del Mar Local Coastal Program Implementing Ordinances and Land Use Plan.

The property at 624 8th Street is not within the Coastal Commission Appeals Area and the CDP is therefore not appealable to the Coastal Commission.

CORRESPONDENCE:

Staff has received one letter of support from Jill Ellis and one request for DRB site visit with concerns regarding the fence along the west, included as Exhibit F.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Staff recommends the Board consider the Project relative to the analysis provided, especially those “Potential Issue Areas” as analyzed in the DRO Compliance section of this report, and determine whether proposed development would present any conflicts with Regulatory Conclusions of the DRO. If the Project is determined to result in the potential for conflicts, staff recommends the Board provide specific feedback to the Applicant to effect compliance and continue the item to allow for design revisions to be made and brought back for Board review and consideration at a later date. However, if the Board determines to approve the project as presented, at a minimum, the draft conditions of approval included as Exhibit G should be included as part of any such approval.

Respectfully Submitted,
_____________________
Jennifer Gavin
Associate Planner
11 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 14 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 127 April 4, 2022 Item 10

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT: DRB21-018/ LC21-008/ CDP21-012
December 15, 2021

EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A- Materials Board
Exhibit B- Story Pole Certification
Exhibit C- CPP Report
Exhibit D- DRO Compliance Letter
Exhibit E- Land Conservation Permit Justification Letter Exhibit F- Correspondence
Exhibit G- Conditions of Approval
12 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 15 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 128 April 4, 2022 Item 10

BRIAN CHURCH ARCHITECTURE
507SouthCedrosAvenue,SolanaBeach,CA

ZISKINRESIDENCE
6248THSTREET,DELMAR,CA

TPOROOFING
(SOLARGRAY)
BRICK
(BEIGES)

FRONTELEVATION
STUCCO
(GRAY)

RAILINGANDWINDOWS
(BLACK)

SIDING COPPERTRIM
(GRAY)
Exhibit A 13 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 16 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 129 April 4, 2022 Item 10 6 7 8
9 10
12 11
13 1
15 14
2 4 3
16 17
26' - 2 3/4" 12' - 6 1/2" 7' - 10 1/8"
36' - 6 5/8"
18' - 6 1/8" 23' - 1 1/2" 4' - 11 3/4"
2' - 6 3/8" 5' - 6" 16' - 4" 12' - 2 1/4" 14' - 4" 6' - 8 1/8" 1' - 2 1/4"
0' - 9"
5 Brian Church
Architecture
507 S. Cedros Ave
Solana Beach, CA
DATE:SHEETSCALE:

STATE OF

CALIFORNIABRIAN CHURCH

LICENSED ARCHITECT
REN.

DATE: 09/30
/21
C-22,251
RP 2017-0011/CDP 2017-0056
3/16" = 1'-0"
3/15/2021 5:01:32 PM
SP1

STORY POLE PLAN
03/05/21
ZISKIN
624 8TH STREET, DEL MAR, CA

STORY POLE SCHEDULE
UNIT
POLE #

BASE POLE

ELEVATION
TOP OF
POLE

ELEVATION

POLE LENGTH
- DECIMAL
POLE
LENGTH
1 243.75' 259.58' 15.83 15' - 10"2 243.83' 259.58' 15.75 15' - 9"3 243.83' 259.58' 15.75 15' - 9"4 243.33' 259.58' 16.25 16' - 3"5 254.25' 259.58' 5.33 5' - 4"6 254.25' 266.63' 12.38 12' - 4 1/2"7 254.25' 266.63' 12.38 12' - 4 1/2"8 243.83' 259.58' 15.75 15' - 9"9 243.42' 266.63' 23.21 23' - 2 1/2"10 243.75' 266.63' 22.88 22' - 10 1/2"11 243.75' 266.70' 22.95 22' - 11 3/8"12 243.50' 266.70' 23.20 23' - 2 3/8"13 243.58' 266.70' 23.11 23' - 1 3/8"14 243.75' 270.43' 26.68 26' - 8 5/32"15 243.58' 266.70' 23.11 23' - 1 3/8"16 243.67' 266.63' 22.96 22' - 11 1/2"17 243.67' 266.63' 22.96 22' - 11 1/2"

SUBMITTALS / REVISIONS
# Date Revision/Submittal
3/16" = 1'-0"

STORY POLE PLAN
NOTES1. AFTER STORY POLES ARE INSTALLED AND CERTIFIED, EACH

POLE IS TO BE REVISED ON THE ELEVATIONS TO INCLUDE THE MSL OF THE EXISTING GRADE Exhibit B
14 December 15, 2021 Item 05

EXHIBIT A
17 February 23, 2022 Item 1
Attachment D
130 April 4, 2022 Item 10
4 15
2 14
13 11
3 1
12 F.Y.S.B.
3 2
14 11 9 7
8 13
1 12 10
Brian Church
Architecture
507 S. Cedros Ave
Solana Beach, CA
DATE:SHEETSCALE:

STATE OF

CALIFORNIABRIAN CHURCH

LICENSED ARCHITECT
REN.

DATE: 09/30
/21
C-22,251
RP 2017-0011/CDP 2017-0056
1/4" = 1'-0"
3/15/2021 5:01:13 PM
A6

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
03/05/21
ZISKIN
624 8TH STREET, DEL MAR, CA
1/4" = 1'-0"

SOUTH ELEVATION (FRONT)

SUBMITTALS / REVISIONS
# Date Revision/Submittal
1/4" = 1'-0"

EAST ELEVATION
Exhibit B
15 December 15, 2021 Item 05

EXHIBIT A
18 February 23, 2022 Item 1
Attachment D
131 April 4, 2022 Item 10
6 16
1415
5 4
17 10 7 6 16
8 5
9 17
Brian Church
Architecture
507 S. Cedros Ave
Solana Beach, CA
DATE:SHEETSCALE:

STATE OF

CALIFORNIABRIAN CHURCH

LICENSED ARCHITECT
REN.

DATE: 09/30
/21
C-22,251
RP 2017-0011/CDP 2017-0056
1/4" = 1'-0"
3/15/2021 5:01:26 PM
A7

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
03/05/21
ZISKIN
624 8TH STREET, DEL MAR, CA
1/4" = 1'-0"

WEST ELEVATION

SUBMITTALS / REVISIONS
# Date Revision/Submittal
1/4" = 1'-0"

NORTH ELEVATION
Exhibit B
16 December 15, 2021 Item 05

EXHIBIT A
19 February 23, 2022 Item 1
Attachment D
132 April 4, 2022 Item 10
1 CPP Final Report CPP20-006
06/03/21
Project address: 624 8th Street
Project Name: Ziskin House
APN 300-252-1400
Existing conditions:

The site currently includes a 1950’s era single-story single-family residence with attached garage.

The site contains several medium sized trees and row of trees (forming a dense hedge) along the north and east property lines).

First Step
We began the design process by discussing the project goals with the homeowners (Matt and Chelsea Ziskin) and explored how we could create a comfortable home for them and their four young boys within the limited allowed FAR (1,600 sf excluding the garage).

Preliminary design
Our only design completed before our first CPP meeting was to determine the rough footprint of the building and where it could be located on the lot. In order to maintain a usable backyard for their boys and take advantage of potential views, we felt a two-story configuration would be required.

CPP Meeting 1
A radius report was created, and notifications were mailed out ahead of time to all neighbors within a 300’ radius. The first CPP meeting was held onsite at 6:00 on October 6th, 2020. There were two planned participants, but Suzy McNamara decided to come talk in person later. The remaining participant (Janet Wilson, 635 Hoska) decided to come by the house to meet in person.

Attendees included:
• Matt and Chelsea Ziskin (owners)
• Brian Church (architect)
• Janet Wilson (635 Hoska)
Project discussion:

We described the rough project schedule and the general plan to build a two-story house.

Janet Wilson explained that they would also be undertaking a project at their home and suggested that the two parties should be supportive of each other.

Janet explained that views from the south end of their house and backyard could be maintained if the Ziskin’s large hedge along their east property line (between the two properties) were trimmed.

Matt and Chelsea both voiced their concern that they wanted to maintain privacy from their back yard and didn’t want to commit to any trimming of the hedges – especially since their hedge/trees were effectively cut down just before the Ziskin’s moved into the house in 2015.

Exhibit C 17 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 20 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 133 April 4, 2022 Item 10 2 We decided that the best plan for the house would be to push it as far south as possible on the lot.

That would provide the most privacy to/from the neighbors and allow the most views over the back yard from any properties to the east.

Janet stated that a second story wouldn’t be a problem if the house were pushed to the south, but wanted to be sure the height of the trees/hedges didn’t become a problem.

Follow up meetings:

On November 2nd, I visited 635 Hoska and met with Janet Wilson and Nigel Hook at their property.

Janet showed me what they considered their primary living area and indicated the view to the southwest over the hedges which have regrown up to be visible in their views from their house and deck. Janet said that she was close with the previous owner and was given permission to regularly trim the hedges.

On November 3rd, I met again with Matt and Chelsea Ziskin to discuss my meeting with the neighbors at 635 Hoska. Matt shared the photos of the pre-existing trees and how they were cut down just prior to moving into the house. In discussion with neighbors, no-one recalled the trees ever being trimmed in the past. It is unclear as to whether there were any preexisting views from 635 Hoska over the Ziskin’s property prior to the trees being cut down in 2015. We decided to proceed with the design strategy discussed (keeping the second floor to the south to preserve views and privacy), and to look further into the history of the tree/hedge heights.

Preliminary Design
With the input from the first neighborhood meeting, we developed the design of the Ziskin’s house and then erected story poles (15 days prior) in anticipation of the second CPP meeting.

Correspondence
After the story poles were erected, we received email correspondence from the neighbors at 635 Hoska and letters from a few others in the community stating a concern that the proposed house would block the views from 635 Hoska to the east. I responded to most of those letters. See correspondence exhibits (attached)
CPP Meeting 2
The second CPP meeting was held via a Zoom call on May 13th 24th at 4:00 with the following in attendance:
• Matt and Chelsea Ziskin (owners)
• Brian Church (architect)
• Diane Maxwell (428 8th)
• Arline and David Paa (612 8th)
• Henrik Jensen (434 8th)
• Janet Wilson and Nigel Hook (635
Hoska)
• Kelly McQuade (623 Hoska)
• Kelly and Pat Welch (431 8th)
• Marcellite & Peter Lasensky (642
Hoska)
• Pam Richards (representing Judd and
Jill Ellis from 442 8th)
• Suzy McNamara (623 Hoska)
• Wynne Spotifora (611 Hoska)
• Kathleen Moore (14038 Condesa)
• Barb and Tim Davis (755 Kalamath)
Exhibit C 18 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 21 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 134 April 4, 2022 Item 10 3 Project Presentation
Based on the negative correspondence received from several residents (not direct neighbors), Matt took a few minutes at the beginning of the meeting provide a more detailed history on the trees and associated views from 635 Hoska. Below is his statement and photos. “We are aware that our immediate neighbors to the east have been active in recruiting people to oppose our project on the basis that we are obscuring their ocean view with our second story. I would like to provide some background on this issue which began when we purchased the home in 2015. The view in question did not exist prior to 2015 when our neighbors instructed their gardener to trespass onto our property and cut down seventeen 50-year-old Eugenia trees on our property. The picture below was taken after our offer was accepted and we were in escrow. Two days later, we returned for our home inspection and were shocked to find the hedges which previously reached to the same height as the hedges to the north were cut down to stumps. This was done without permission to access the property or cut the trees. They made no attempt to contact the previous owner, the realtors, or the new owners. While the neighbors to the east have stated they regularly trimmed those trees to maintain their view, they have not been able to produce a single photo showing their view prior to 2015. During a boundary survey recently performed, it became clear the hedges are several feet onto our property and there is no grey area about who should have the right to trim the hedges. Further, in conversations with several people who spent time in the backyard with the previous owner, it is clear that these hedges had not been trimmed to afford a view prior to 2015. Over the last six years, our neighbors have continued to trim our hedges without our permission when we have been out of town. It has been an ongoing struggle and source of conflict. For those who have joined this call as Del Martians looking out for each other, I ask for your support. We have sought to be good neighbors and citizens of Del Mar with respect for the laws and rules that govern our city. We wanted to let everyone know the backstory regarding this "view" claim so people are aware of the illegal and unneighborly actions taken to produce this "view" in the first place.” Slides:

Exhibit C 19 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 22 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 135 April 4, 2022 Item 10 BACKGROUND OF VIEW FROM 635 HOSKA
635 HOSKA PROPERTY
624 8TH STREET PROPERTY

EUGENIA TREES/HEDGES
N
Exhibit C
20 December 15, 2021 Item 05

EXHIBIT A
23 February 23, 2022 Item 1
Attachment D
136 April 4, 2022 Item 10
BACKGROUND OF VIEW FROM 635 HOSKA
624 8TH STREET PROPERTY 635 HOSKA PROPERTY

EUGENIA TREES/HEDGES
N
Exhibit C
21 December 15, 2021 Item 05

EXHIBIT A
24 February 23, 2022 Item 1
Attachment D
137 April 4, 2022 Item 10
BACKGROUND OF VIEW FROM 635 HOSKA
Photo of northeast corner of 624 8th St taken on March 20, 2015 from the roof while the home was in escrow.

Photos of northeast corner of 624 8th St taken on March 22, 2015 from the roof during our home inspection. The over 50 year old Eugenia hedges which are on the 624 8th St property had been cut to stumps by the 635 Hoska neighbors’ gardeners without permission to access the property or cut the trees. 3/20/2015
3/22/2015 3/22/2015
Exhibit C
22 December 15, 2021 Item 05

EXHIBIT A
25 February 23, 2022 Item 1
Attachment D
138 April 4, 2022 Item 10
4 Design Presentation
We then presented the project design by sharing my computer screen with Zoom call attendees. We reviewed project plans, elevations, sections and viewed the 3-D model. We were able to show views of the proposed house from the perspective of surrounding properties. I explained the design strategies of the proposed house and explained that we had kept the house and second floor pushed as far south as possible to provide better view and privacy.

Plans:

Exhibit C 23 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 26 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 139 April 4, 2022 Item 10 Exhibit C 24 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 27 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 140 April 4, 2022 Item 10 REF.
1 A5
A4 2
A4
1 A5 2
15' - 0"
PATIO

COVERED
ENTRY
PATIO
SPA

DRIVEWAY
TRASH
GATE
GATE
21' - 2"
42' - 10"
S.Y.S.B.
7' - 6"
R.Y.S.B.
25' - 0"
S.Y.S.B.
7' - 6"

LANDSCAPE

LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE
(E) RETAINING WALL @ ADJACENT PROPERTY
F.Y.S.B.
20' - 0"
14' - 11"
Brian Church Architecture
507 S. Cedros Ave
Solana Beach, CA 92075
(858) 793-3437
SCALE:DATE:SHEET

STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

LICENSED ARCHITECT

BRIANCHURCH
REN.

DATE: 09/30/21
C-22,251
1/8" = 1'-0"
4/13/2021 1:23:58 PM
C1

SITE PLAN
04/13/21
ZISKIN
624 8TH STREET, DEL MAR, CA

SITE PLAN
1/8" = 1'-0"

ON TR H

SUBMITTALS / REVISIONS
# Date Revision/Submittal
Exhibit C 25 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 28 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 141 April 4, 2022 Item 10 UP
A5 1
A4
2 A4 1
A5
2 . B. S. Y. S
7' - 6"
7' - 6"
25' - 0"
MASTER
BEDROM
PATIO
(COVERED)
PATIO
BEDROOM 2
BEDROOM 3
GARAGE
MUD
19' - 0"
20' - 1 3/8"
2%
[No Slope]
1%

EXISTING RETAINING WALLON ADJACENT PROPERTY

LANDSCAPE
F.Y.S.B.
20' - 0"
42' - 9 1/2"

LANDSCAPE

CMU FENCE WITH STUCCO (NON-RETAINING)

CMU FENCE WITH STUCCO (NON-RETAINING)
GATE
Brian Church Architecture
507 S. Cedros Ave
Solana Beach, CA 92075
(858) 793-3437
SCALE:DATE:SHEET

STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

LICENSED ARCHITECT

BRIANCHURCH
REN.

DATE: 09/30/21
C-22,251
1/4" = 1'-0"
4/13/2021 1:23:54 PM
A1

FIRST FLOOR PLAN
04/13/21
ZISKIN
624 8TH STREET, DEL MAR, CA
LEVEL 1
1/4" = 1'-0"
NORTH

SUBMITTALS / REVISIONS
# Date Revision/Submittal
Exhibit C 26 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 29 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 142 April 4, 2022 Item 10 REF.

DN

REAR YARD SETBACK
25' - 0"
707 SF
S.Y.S.B.
7' - 6"
S.Y.S.B.
7' - 6"
DINING
ENTRY
DECK

LIVING KITCHEN
BUTLER
PANTRY

PASS THROUGH WINDOW
15' - 6"
F.Y.S.B.
20' - 0"

PLANTER
Brian Church Architecture
507 S. Cedros Ave
Solana Beach, CA 92075
(858) 793-3437
SCALE:DATE:SHEET

STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

LICENSED ARCHITECT

BRIANCHURCH
REN.

DATE: 09/30/21
C-22,251
1/4" = 1'-0"
4/13/2021 1:23:54 PM
A2

SECOND FLOOR PLAN
04/13/21
ZISKIN
624 8TH STREET, DEL MAR, CA
LEVEL 2
1/4" = 1'-0"
NORTH

SUBMITTALS / REVISIONS
# Date Revision/Submittal
Exhibit C 27 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 30 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 143 April 4, 2022 Item 10 A5 1
A4
2 A4 1
A5
2 Brian Church Architecture
507 S. Cedros Ave
Solana Beach, CA 92075
(858) 793-3437
SCALE:DATE:SHEET

STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

LICENSED ARCHITECT

BRIANCHURCH
REN.

DATE: 09/30/21
C-22,251
1/4" = 1'-0"
4/13/2021 1:23:55 PM
A3

ROOF PLAN
04/13/21
ZISKIN
624 8TH STREET, DEL MAR, CA

ROOF PLATE
1/4" = 1'-0"

SUBMITTALS / REVISIONS
# Date Revision/Submittal
NORTH
Exhibit C 28 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 31 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 144 April 4, 2022 Item 10 21' - 1"
Brian Church Architecture
507 S. Cedros Ave
Solana Beach, CA 92075
(858) 793-3437
SCALE:DATE:SHEET

STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

LICENSED ARCHITECT

BRIANCHURCH
REN.

DATE: 09/30/21
C-22,251
1/4" = 1'-0"
4/13/2021 1:23:56 PM
A4

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
04/13/21
ZISKIN
624 8TH STREET, DEL MAR, CA

WEST ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"

NORTH ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"

SUBMITTALS / REVISIONS
# Date Revision/Submittal
Exhibit C 29 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 32 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 145 April 4, 2022 Item 10 R.Y.S.B.
25' - 0"
F.Y.S.B.
20' - 0"
Brian Church Architecture
507 S. Cedros Ave
Solana Beach, CA 92075
(858) 793-3437
SCALE:DATE:SHEET

STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

LICENSED ARCHITECT

BRIANCHURCH
REN.

DATE: 09/30/21
C-22,251
1/4" = 1'-0"
4/13/2021 1:23:58 PM
A5

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
04/13/21
ZISKIN
624 8TH STREET, DEL MAR, CA

SOUTH ELEVATION (FRONT)
1/4" = 1'-0"

EAST ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"

SUBMITTALS / REVISIONS
# Date Revision/Submittal
Exhibit C 30 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 33 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 146 April 4, 2022 Item 10 Brian Church Architecture
507 S. Cedros Ave
Solana Beach, CA 92075
(858) 793-3437
SCALE:DATE:SHEET

STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

LICENSED ARCHITECT

BRIANCHURCH
REN.

DATE: 09/30/21
C-22,251
4/13/2021 1:24:00 PM
V1

PERSPECTIVE VIEWS
04/13/21
ZISKIN
624 8TH STREET, DEL MAR, CA

STREET VIEW SE

STREET VIEW SW

VIEW FROM NEVIEW FROM NW

SUBMITTALS / REVISIONS
# Date Revision/Submittal
Exhibit C 31 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 34 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 147 April 4, 2022 Item 10 8 10
9 2
4 3
11 7
5 67
4' - 6"
19' - 9" 23' - 11" 4' - 11"
40' - 8" 7' - 11"
4' - 6" 14' - 4" 6' - 7"
37' - 9"
29' - 9" 8' - 0"
3' - 0" 12' - 2" 16' - 2" 1' - 5"
3' - 0"
20' - 0"
12' - 11" 7' - 6"
42' - 9"
270.43 CHIMNEY
3' - 0"
2' - 0"
259.58
266.70 266.70
259.58 259.58
259.58
266.70
266.70
260.11
266.70
5' - 2"
3' - 8"

OVERHANG OUTRIGGER

OVERHANG OUTRIGGER

OVERHANG OUTRIGGER

OVERHANG OUTRIGGER
Brian Church Architecture
507 S. Cedros Ave
Solana Beach, CA 92075
(858) 793-3437
SCALE:DATE:SHEET

STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

LICENSED ARCHITECT

BRIANCHURCH
REN.

DATE: 09/30/21
C-22,251
3/16" = 1'-0"
4/18/2021 9:18:26 PM
SP1

STORY POLE PLAN
04/18/21
ZISKIN
624 8TH STREET, DEL MAR, CA

STORY POLE SCHEDULE
POLE #

BASE POLE

ELEVATION
TOP OF
POLE

ELEVATION

POLE LENGTH
- DECIMAL POLE LENGTH
2 244.00' 259.58' 15.58 15' - 7"3 243.00' 259.58' 16.58 16' - 7"4 255.00' 259.58' 4.58 4' - 7"5 244.00' 260.11' 16.11 16' - 1 1/2"6 253.00' 266.70' 13.70 13' - 8 1/2"7 244.00' 266.70' 22.70 22' - 8 1/2"7 255.00' 266.70' 11.70 11' - 8 1/2"8 244.00' 266.70' 22.70 22' - 8 1/2"9 254.50' 270.43' 15.93 15' - 11 1/4" 10 244.00' 259.58' 15.58 15' - 7"11 255.00' 266.70' 11.70 11' - 8 1/2"

SUBMITTALS / REVISIONS
# Date Revision/Submittal
NOTES1. AFTER STORY POLES ARE INSTALLED AND CERTIFIED, EACH

POLE IS TO BE REVISED ON THE ELEVATIONS TO INCLUDE THE MSL OF THE EXISTING GRADE

STORY POLE PLAN
3/16" = 1'-0"
NORTH
Exhibit C 32 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 35 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 148 April 4, 2022 Item 10 Exhibit C 33 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 36 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 149 April 4, 2022 Item 10 Exhibit C 34 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 37 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 150 April 4, 2022 Item 10 5 Discussion
We then listened to the input from the attendees. An outline of comments is presented below.

Diane Maxwell (428 8th Street):

Diane asked how tall the proposed house was. I noted that it is proposed at 21’-1” from grade. Diane also noted that she was shocked at the photos of the tree cutting in 2015.

Arline and David Paa (612 8th Street):

Asked about whether the proposed new fence on the west property line could be built at the beginning of construction so that the new plants would have a chance to grow and provide privacy for when the construction fence was removed. I noted that it could.

Henrik Jensen (434 8th Street):

Stated that he was in support of the project and disliked the “bullying” tactics apparently used by the owners of 635 Hoska. He also noted that houses were only allowed one Primary Scenic View and that the owners of 635 Hoska may be claiming more than one.

Nigel Hook (635 Hoska Drive):

Stated that the view to the southwest from the doors on the south side of their living room was their Primary Scenic View.

Janet Wilson (635 Hoska Drive):

Asked if the house might be getting extra square footage in the FAR calculation since the lot is substandard in area. I explained that the DRO allows for a maximum of 25% but also provides a minimum of 2,000 sf. Which is what is proposed. Janet later noted that there may now be a privacy issue (to her back yard) from the proposed second story. She invited neighbors to come see the view from their house.

Kelly McQuade (623 Hoska Drive):

Was supportive of the project as proposed and hoped that the neighbors could all get along.

Kelly Welch (431 8th Street):

Stated her “total support” for the project as proposed.

Pat Welch (431 8th Street):

Noted that the house was pushed to the south to help with any views from the east, but doubted there was any ocean view from 635 prior to the trees being cut down.

Marcellite and Peter Lasensky (642 Hoska Drive):

Expressed that they were supportive and excited to see the new house built.

Pam Richards (representing Judd and Jill Ellis from 442 8th Street):

Called in for her neighbors Judd and Jill Elllis from 442 8th Street who couldn’t join the call, but wanted to express their support for the project as proposed.

Suzy McNamara (623 Hoska Drive):

Had technical difficulties with her microphone but texted that she would provide comments later.

Exhibit C 35 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 38 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 151 April 4, 2022 Item 10 6 Wynne and Paul Spotifora (611 Hoska Drive)
Was happy to say she couldn’t even see the story poles from their property. They liked the privacy and were glad to see the house pushed to the south.

Barb and Tim Davis (755 Kalamath Drive)
Liked the design and noted that it was within all DROs and Design Guidelines.

Exhibit C 36 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 39 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 152 April 4, 2022 Item 10 7 Correspondence
Letters from the following parties are provided below.
• Janet Wilson
• Camilla Rang
• Grant Larson
• Jayne Haines
• Brooke and Chris Garcia
Exhibit C 37 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 40 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 153 April 4, 2022 Item 10 From: [email protected]
To: "Janet Wilson"
Bcc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Story poles at 624 8th Street / Janet & Nigel"s Ocean View Date: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 11:35:03 AM
Hi Janet,
I got your photos and saw that you had called. Sorry for the slow response, I’ve been buried at work. All the residential work is going nuts since the lockdowns.

The sunny picture you provided shows things much more clearly, thanks. I understand that you and the Ziskins have yet to work out a solution for the hedges, but assume that will get resolved as we work through the approvals process.

While the design/story poles and views are clearly interrelated with the landscaping, I expect that they may be addressed separately – either through the Design Review or the Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight review.

I think we can see the story poles pretty clearly from your photos, so it is possible to discuss both issues independently.

The CPP process requires that we provide plans and story poles so that we can have a productive discussion, but these are very early designs. Keep in mind that we aren’t approving a design at this point, only gathering information. I appreciate that you’ve provided clear input and photos, which is what the CPP is all about.

I don’t think it’s necessary to meet again onsite, and we have the CPP2 meeting in just a few days where we can discuss things further.

Sincerely,
Brian Church AIA
Brian Church Architecture
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 4:15 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Nigel Hook <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Story poles at 624 8th Street / Janet & Nigel's Ocean View Hi Brian,
I texted a picture earlier.

Matt allowing landscaping to grow to deliberately block our ocean view is not working towards a mutually beneficial solution. Even worse, forcing us to spend 3K is not working toward a mutually beneficial solution. Designing a structure which clearly blocks our declared primary living area view will almost certainly result in rework. You are a Del Mar architect and you should be advising your clients accordingly.

Exhibit C 38 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 41 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 154 April 4, 2022 Item 10 I suggest you pick a time to stop by for a conversation.

Thanks, Janet
619.733.1428
On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 4:13 PM Janet Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Brian,
I texted pictures earlier.

Matt allowing landscaping to grow to deliberately block our ocean view is not working towards a mutually beneficial solution. Even worse, forcing us to spend 3K is not working toward a mutually beneficial solution. Designing a structure which clearly blocks our declared primary living area view will almost certainly result in rework. You are a Del Mar architect and you should be advising your clients accordingly.

I suggest you pick a time to stop by for a conversation.

Thanks, Janet
619.733.1428
On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 6:18 PM <[email protected]> wrote:

Janet,
Thanks, this photo is helpful.

If you get a chance, please take one when it’s sunny so that we can more clearly see the story poles, horizon and view.

I haven’t been involved enough in the discussions regarding the landscaping to comment constructively. We are definitely trying to work toward a mutually beneficial solution.

Brian Church, AIA
Brian Church Architecture
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 11:17 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Nigel Hook <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Story poles at 624 8th Street / Janet & Nigel's Ocean View Hi Brian,
During your visit to see our ocean view, I knew you understood how important our view is and most likely I used the phrase "I'll go to the mat to retain our view".

We have view pictures taken after Jane Martin (previous owner) passed in 2015 and prior to Matt and Chelsea closing on the house. In 2015, Matt was extremely unhappy and, to this day (6 years later), Matt is still very bitter.

Exhibit C 39 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 42 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 155 April 4, 2022 Item 10 Exhibit C 40 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 43 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 156 April 4, 2022 Item 10 Chelsea and I were forming a friendship and discussing her plans. I wasn't opposed to a 2-story house as long as it didn't affect our view. She understood the rules of the game. Unfortunately, the relationship I was forming with Chelsea has deteriorated and we no longer speak to each other.

This happened after Chelsea and Matt came over to discuss the vegetation which is now blocking our ocean view. There were no privacy concerns and even though we've offered to pay the ongoing maintenance costs, Matt refused. Toward the end of this discussion Matt outright said he would cut as long as we approved their 2-story. I replied that I couldn't approve a 2- story without at least seeing story poles. That was basically the end of the relationship.

This is clearly a spite blockage and mediation has been rejected.

Subsequently, Nigel and I applied for TSVS21-001 relief and that application has cost us over $3,000... yep, 3K to have the city resolve a conflict which Matt will lose.

Regarding a new house, I would prefer to come to a friendly compromise, but Matt's current attitude forcing us to drop a chunk of coin, not only indicates he doesn't understand Del Mar, it shows a disregard for what is reasonable and neighborly. At this point, Nigel is vehemently opposed to a 2-story and I'm not fair behind. This doesn't hold much hope for a future relationship. I'll say it again... I'll go to the mat to retain our view.

Please let me know when you would like to stop by.

Thanks, Janet
On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 9:16 AM <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Janet,
I got you message yesterday. I haven’t had a chance to go check out the story poles yet but hope to in the next day or two. There should be poles representing the proposed first and second floors with an outrigger on the top representing the overhang on the north side. It would be helpful if you could send me another photo from your house. A view from inside is best, but other views (other windows or outside) for context would be helpful as well. I should be able to send a perspective view from that approximate location to illustrate the design.

Thanks,
Brian Church AIA
Brian Church Architecture
Exhibit C 41 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 44 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 157 April 4, 2022 Item 10 From: Camilla Rang
To: Matt Ziskin
Cc: Brian Church
Subject: Re: CPP20-006, 624 8th Street, Del Mar
Date: Thursday, June 3, 2021 5:04:47 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
Thank you so much for reaching out to me, Matt. Much appreciated. It is a very unfortunate situation. Yes, they should not have trimmed your hedge without your permission, I think they are aware of that and have apologized.

On the other hand, their word is that they used to have that ocean view because the former owner was happy to let them trim her hedge to give them ocean view. Legally they should have to prove that with images, but perhaps between neighbors, you could take them for their word? Isn´t there a way to work things out where both of you compromise? You are going to live right next to each other for years to come.

Sincerely,
Camilla Rang
159 10th Street, Del Mar, CA 92014
Cell: 858 353 1948
On Thursday, June 3, 2021, 02:47:44 PM PDT, Matt Ziskin <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Camilla,
Thank you for your correspondence regarding our proposed home project at 624 8th Street in Del Mar.

We appreciate your willingness to support fellow Del Mar residents. It appears you were not able to join the CPP2 meeting so I wanted to share some of the information related to the view issue that was discussed in the meeting that you may not be aware of. The images below show the homes in question with 635 Hoska outlined in red and 624 8th outlined in yellow.

Exhibit C 42 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 45 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 158 April 4, 2022 Item 10 We are aware that our immediate neighbors to the east have been active in recruiting people to oppose our project on the basis that we are obscuring their ocean view with our proposed second story. I would like to provide some background on this issue which began when we purchased the home in 2015. The view in question did not exist prior to 2015 when our neighbors instructed their gardener to trespass onto our property and cut down 17 of the 50-year-old Eugenia trees on our property. The first picture below was taken after our offer was accepted and we were in escrow. Two days later, we returned for our home inspection and were shocked to find the hedges which previously reached to the same height as the hedges to the north were cut to stumps. This was done without permission to access the property or cut the trees. They made no attempt to contact the previous owner, the realtors, or the new owners.

While the neighbors to the east have stated they regularly trimmed those trees to maintain their view, they have not been able to produce any evidence of a view prior to 2015. During a boundary survey recently performed, it became clear the hedges are several feet onto our property and there is no grey area about who should have the right to trim the hedges. Further, in conversations with several people who spent time in the backyard with the previous owner, it is clear that these hedges had not been trimmed to afford a view prior to 2015. Over the last six years, our neighbors have continued to trim our hedges without our Exhibit C 43 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 46 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 159 April 4, 2022 Item 10 permission when we have been out of town. It has been an ongoing struggle and source of conflict. We have sought to be good neighbors and citizens of Del Mar with respect for the laws and rules that govern our city. We certainly are in favor of Del Martians looking out for each other and thought it would be important for you to know the backstory regarding this "view" claim so you are aware of the actions taken to produce this "view" in the first place.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,
Chelsea and Matt Ziskin
From: Camilla Rang <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:36 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: CPP20-006, 624 8th Street, Del Mar
Yes, I am sorry, I should not have been so fast and implied dishonesty from your part. My apologies.

Sincerely,
Camilla Rang
On Wednesday, May 12, 2021, 06:53:09 PM PDT, <[email protected]> wrote:

Ms. Rang,
You are absolutely right about us Del Martians needing to look out for each other, and construction seems to bring out the worst in people. I have lived and worked in Del Mar for more than 25 years and am continually shocked and dismayed at people’s behavior.

I appreciate your support for your friends and will welcome any objective input throughout the process.

But before jumping in by calling people dishonest, you might consider that there are always two sides to every story. By the tone of your email, it appears you have heard only one.

Fortunately, the Design Review process is robust enough to sift through the irrelevant hyperbole and Exhibit C 44 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 47 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 160 April 4, 2022 Item 10 objectively consider all the facts before weighing in on a project.

I look forward to meeting you and discussing the project further. Hopefully, by the we get to the DRB, everyone will be able to meet in person.

Sincerely,
Brian Church, AIA
Brian Church Architecture
From: Camilla Rang <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 5:44 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: CPP20-006, 624 8th Street, Del Mar
Dear Brian Church,
I am writing to you in regards to the 2-story house you, as the architect, are suggesting on 624 8th Street, Del Mar. A 2-story house on that location will remove the ocean view for the neighbor just east of the project, 635 Hoska Drive. According to the images I have seen, it is clear that a 2-story house on 624 8th Street will block at least 50% of the view from their primary living area at 635 Hoska Drive. It is also clear that the owner(s) of 624 8th street has tried to hide this fact by allowing the vegetation to grow out of control lately. Luckily, the owners of 635 Hoska Drive have good documentation of before and after pictures of the vegetation.

As you must know, there is a municipal code in Del Mar that protects the view for house owners so it is really surprising that a project like this is even proposed without regard to the house owners east of the suggested building. To try to sneak in a 2-building by overgrowing and neglecting bushes and plants is a very dishonest way of doing things. I think you would have had better luck being front up honest. At this point, I don't see how you will even get a partly 2-story house approved.

Exhibit C 45 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 48 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 161 April 4, 2022 Item 10 We are many Del Marians who are in the same situation where we have to deal with dishonest architects and new house owners and we will all stand with the owners of 635 Hoska Drive, protecting their view, just as they will stand with us when it's our turn. Del Mar is very special in regards to protecting the view of house owners and we want to keep it that way. One day, the owners of 624 8th Street will be in the same situation, someone wanting to build a tall house just in front of them, blocking their view, and they too will benefit of this very precious ordinance. It should be in their interest to keep it and protect it.

Please look over your plans and work with house owners around the planned project to make sure everyone is on board.

Sincerely,
Camilla Rang
159 10th Street, Del Mar, CA 92014
Exhibit C 46 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 49 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 162 April 4, 2022 Item 10 From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Bcc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: 624 8th St.

Date: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 6:28:16 PM
Hi Grant,
Thank you for your input. Gathering input from our neighbors based on the preliminary design and story poles is the main purpose of the Citizen Participation Program (CPP). We will take the input into consideration as we move forward in developing the project design before proceeding to the DRB.

I will include your input in the call tomorrow and in the CPP final report. As a respondent, you will receive a copy of the CPP final report within the next two weeks.

Have a great trip to Mexico!
Regards,
Brian Church, AIA
Brian Church Architecture
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 6:20 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: 624 8th St.

Hi Brian,
Hope all is well.

I am writing to oppose the development at 624 8th. St. My wife Jacqueline and I believe it is an unreasonable view blockage of the Hook/Wilson residence.

It also impacts their privacy.

We leave in the morning for Mexico and will not be able to attend the scheduled zoom meeting.

Sincerely,
Grant Larson
Sent from the all new AOL app for Android
Exhibit C 47 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 50 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 163 April 4, 2022 Item 10 From: Jayne Haines
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Del Mar views
Date: Thursday, May 13, 2021 4:44:01 PM
Thank you Brian,
I sent you an email concerning a neighbor whose views are threatened right now with a new build. She lives on 8th st. We stick together on these issues!
Jayne
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 13, 2021, at 4:49 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Hi Jayne,
> Thank you for your note and input. It wasn't clear from your letter whether you were saying your views were affected or you were simply supporting the preservation of view of others. I assume it is the latter, but please clarify. > I agree that views in Del Mar should be protected per the zoning ordinance.

As we work through the design
review process, we will carefully examine any potential view obstruction. I will include you in the distribution of materials and notifications going forward.
> Regards,
>
> Brian Church AIA
> Brian Church Architecture
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jayne Haines <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 1:40 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Del Mar views
>
> Hi Brian,
> I’m a resident who bought our home 28 years ago with great views, but it seems that some neighbors aren’t willing to work together to maintain those views. They either let their hedges (living walls) grow out of control or they erect story poles that will block neighbors’ precious views. >
> I ask you to help support all of us who cherish our way of life and the ocean views we worked hard to obtain. >
> Best,
> Jayne Haines
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
Exhibit C 48 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 51 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 164 April 4, 2022 Item 10 From: [email protected]
To: "Jennifer Gavin"; "Brooke Garcia"
Cc: "Christopher Garcia"; "Joseph Smith"
Bcc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: 624 8th Street
Date: Thursday, June 3, 2021 10:18:35 AM
Hi Brooke,
We’ve taken pictures from various spots in the neighborhood to understand the views and privacy to and from the Matt and Chelsea’s house. I have photos from the street above your house (from Hoska looking toward the site) but nothing from within your property. It would be helpful if you could provide photos from your back yard and from inside your house to give us an idea of the views from there.

Thank you,
Brian Church AIA
Brian Church Architecture
From: Jennifer Gavin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 2:03 PM
To: Brooke Garcia <[email protected]>
Cc: Christopher Garcia <[email protected]>; Joseph Smith <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: RE: 624 8th Street
Hi Brooke,
I am copying the applicant’s architect Brian Church so that he can reach out to you directly to discuss project details as a part of the CPP process and so he can have your feedback below. Both meetings have been held and we are in the waiting period between the second CPP meeting and the applicant being able to apply for the Design Review Board. Since you are located within 300’ from the property you will be included in any future noticing when this project is placed on an agenda for the Design Review Board where you will be able to participate by submitting written correspondence to the Board and/or speaking at the hearing.

As I discussed with your husband, potential impacts from a project are based on existing development and does not include future potential development of neighboring properties. View impacts are assessed from a property’s primary living area (which does not include outdoor spaces) per DMMC 23.08.40: https://library.municode.com/ca/del_mar/codes/municipal_code? nodeId=TIT23BUCO_CH23.08DERE_23.08.040DE
I am happy to give you a call to discuss the process further if you would like.

Jennifer Gavin | Associate Planner
City of Del Mar | Planning and Community Development
1050 Camino del Mar
Exhibit C 49 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 52 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 165 April 4, 2022 Item 10 Del Mar, CA 92014
(858.755.9313 | 7 858.755.2794 | 8 [email protected]
Please note that effective July 7, 2020, City Hall hours are 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM, Monday – Thursday. Until the COVID – 19 pandemic ends, service to the public will be provided remotely. Please check our City website at www.delmar.ca.us for more information regarding online services or to submit requests for information.

From: Brooke Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 11:05 AM
To: Jennifer Gavin <[email protected]>
Cc: Christopher Garcia <[email protected]>; Joseph Smith <[email protected]> Subject: 624 8th Street
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Jennifer,
You spoke with my husband, Chris Garcia, regarding the proposed construction at 624 8th street, In Del Mar. As you are aware, we are homeowners of 641 Hoska, which falls within 300 feet of the 8th street project.

I am curious as to what stage of the Citizens Participation Program this project is currently in? Have both the Introductory Meeting and the Project Proposal meeting taken place? If so, will our comments be considered pursuant to Code 23.08.069, which would then require a, "written response to any concerns raised during the CPP Meeting process?" If not, how do we officially enter them into the record if both meetings have already occurred? This new construction would violate code 23.08.010, in that this new construction infringes on the property values, natural environment, and the aesthetic quality of the community--and in the case of our neighbors--devastates primary scenic views. It would, in effect, diminish the property values of all Del Mar residents in that it creates a frightening precedent. When purchasing a home in a scenic coastal environment, one considers how current houses obstruct views--and can then consider how future construction on an existing unit could further obscure views before making the decision to purchase any given home. This is a critical evaluation that potential homebuyers consider daily in communities such as Del Mar before making such a monumental investment. Current footprint certainly provides considerable information for prospective homebuyers when making that determination. 624 8th Street creates an entirely unique and alarming precedent because it would be impossible to assess the potential of a NEW structure built ANYWHERE on an adjacent property at ANY time. Purchasing a home is one of the most significant investments that most individuals make in a lifetime. How could one properly determine the value of a property if its most valuable characteristics--scenic ocean views---could potentially be disrupted at any given moment? Part of the code currently applies to "primary scenic view, " but in a Exhibit C 50 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 53 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 166 April 4, 2022 Item 10 community such as Del Mar with comfortable weather year round--many people derive enjoyment (and significant property value) from their yards--and not simply their homes. This proposed construction leaves in jeopardy the homes, property values, and quality of life for thousands of Del Mar residents.

The project is specifically in violation of at least three items under Chapter 23.08. The construction violates Code 23.08.072 letter E : "The design will cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value. " It also violates letter J : "The proposed development locates structures so as to unreasonably, adversely impact upon outdoor areas on adjacent properties." Lastly, it violates Code 23.08.077 letter H: "The proposed development unreasonably encroaches upon primary scenic views of neighboring property."
Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you. ~Brooke Garcia
Exhibit C 51 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 54 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 167 April 4, 2022 Item 10 8 Conclusion
The project received overwhelming support from meeting attendees. There were two issues raised by the owners of 635 Hoska where they were concerned that the new design encroaches into their primary scenic view, and the second story may create privacy issues to their back yard and house.

The Garcias also were concerned about impacts on views.

Response:

Views
o The project has been designed to be located on the south side of the property to preserve as many views and privacy from the east as possible. o The views referenced appear to have been attained by the trees (which reside on the 624 8th St side of the property line) being cut down in 2015 by the residents of 635 Hoska without permission from the owners of 624 8th St. o The story poles are not visible from the primary living areas of 641 Hoska (Garcia) Privacy
o There are no windows proposed on the second floor facing east (toward 635 Hoska) except two small windows in the powder room and pantry
o The second-floor deck is proposed on the southwest corner, as far from 635 Hoska as possible
o Allowing the trees to grow back to their pre-2015 maturity would provide additional privacy.

Exhibit C 52 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 55 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 168 April 4, 2022 Item 10 12/07/21
Design Review Standards Compliance Letter
Project address: 624 8th Street
Project Name: Ziskin House
City of Del Mar
Planning Department
Attn: Jennifer Gavin
Preservation of views
Due to existing trees and the configuration of the lot and neighboring homes, there are no primary scenic views across or through the lot. As discussed elsewhere, the neighbors to the east had claimed to have view through the lot from their home. This claim was unanimously refuted by the Planning Commission.

Privacy of neighbors
To maintain privacy between the Ziskin’s proposed house and the house to the east at 635 Hoska, only small windows (pantry and powder room) face east. These windows can be obscured glass for additional privacy. Additionally, the existing eugenia hedge between the properties will be retained.

To preserve privacy from the neighbor’s house and yard to the west, the house has been pushed to the south and east (15’-0” from property line) as suggested in the Design Guidelines B.2.C.2.

To preserve privacy to and from the neighbors to the north, the existing eugenia hedge there will be retained.

Neighborhood scale
The houses within the surrounding neighborhood are a mixture of one- and two-story structures.

The proposed two-story house has the same FAR as the surrounding properties, and is only 1,600 sf, plus the 400 sf garage. The proposed house has a flat roof to minimize height and bulk and proposes plate heights well under the maximum outlined in the Design Guidelines. The proposed house is much smaller than the house directly adjacent to the east and is approximately the same size as the guest house on that property.

Exhibit D 53 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 56 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 169 April 4, 2022 Item 10 Overall compatibility
Neighboring houses comprise a variety of architectural styles and roof configurations (sloped and flat). The clean aesthetics and organic materials (stucco and wood) of the proposed house allow it to blend into the eclectic neighborhood and landscape. The flat roofs, and below-street level garage and first floor contribute to visually minimize the house’s appearance.

Existing Trees to Remain
The existing eugenia trees along the east and north property lines will be retained. The existing ngaio (myoporum laetum) and weeping fig (ficus benjamina) trees at the southwestern portion of the lot will be retained. It may need to be replanted or otherwise protected due to site grading.

Design Review Guideline (Regarding staff comments)

1. Grading, entry, existing trees and retaining walls.
a. C.6 Retaining walls and fencing: All retaining walls are less than 48” in height except for the wall adjacent to the east property line near the front of the property because there is an existing retaining wall with lower adjacent grade approximately 24” onto the neighbor’s property which we cannot alter.

2. C.4 Natural topography: The existing site was previously graded (cut into hillside) to create a buildable lot. However, the existing site drops several feet below the street level, which has cause drainage issues for the neighbor to the west. Therefore, it was necessary to slightly raise the grade to permit a usable driveway slope and allow functional site drainage without draining onto the neighbor’s property or depending on pumps.

3. C.5 Grading Design Guidelines: The entry has been placed at a half level up from the first floor so that it can be level with the sidewalk, which is much higher on the east side of the lot.

4. C.9 Landscape and vegetation
a. As discussed above, several mature trees in the front (west side) are to be retained. Approximately thirty existing eugenia trees are to be retained along the Exhibit D 54 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 57 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 170 April 4, 2022 Item 10 north and east property lines. Several existing fruit trees are to be relocated onsite.
b. Some existing trees need to be removed because they are located in the center of the lot where they would preclude sensible siting of the new house. c. The house has been sited toward the front of the property in an attempt to maintain views from the yards of houses to the east.

5. Bulk and mass questions:
a. As discussed above, the pad has been raised to allow a usable driveway slope and functional site drainage.
b. With the exception of the southeast corner, the lot is almost flat, so the house is not being located at the high point of the lot.
c. The entry elevation is placed at a mid-level to meet the elevation of the adjacent sidewalk and to allow a logical connection to the public/living areas of the house on the second floor, rather than walking down steps to an entry at the bedroom level and then having to walk back up. The roof above the stairs has now been lowered (since the initial Design Review submittal). It was previously not a double height space (was 1 1 /2 height). Higher ceilings above stairs are typical/necessary for head clearance.
d. The only outdoor living area covered by more than a 36” eave is at the rear covered patio. Other eaves have been adjusted to be 36” or less. e. The chimney starts at the second floor and does not dominate the front elevation.

It has been lowered by 24” since the initial Design Review submittal. f. The second story deck is located on top of the garage, therefore, the only added bulk and mass would be the open railing.
g. The proposed house is NOT out of character with the neighborhood. The proposed house is smaller (shorter AND less FAR) than the next-door neighbor’s guest house (!). It is also shorter and smaller than the neighbor’s main house. There are many two-story houses on the street.

Exhibit D 55 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 58 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 171 April 4, 2022 Item 10

6. The second story deck is an extension of the living area (at the second level). As suggested in the Design Guidelines, the second-floor deck is located at the front of the property, faces the street, and is also more than 15’-0” from the side property line (which is the suggestion for second floor decks that do not face the street). The deck is located as far away as possible from the neighbors to the east. We have discussed the design and location with the neighbors to the west and they have no objections to the location or size of the deck. The stairs down to grade from the deck preclude the ability to stand at the edge of the deck and look down into the western neighbor’s yard. We will be keeping the existing trees adjacent to the new deck which will provide screening to the west.

Exhibit D 56 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 59 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 172 April 4, 2022 Item 10 1 Jennifer Gavin
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 10:08 AM
To: Jennifer Gavin
Cc: 'Matt Ziskin'
Subject: FW: Ziskin Residence - Site grading
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.

Hi Jennifer,
In response to one of your questions/comments regarding the site receiving fill (grading), I am forwarding the response from our civil engineer who has developed the site drainage design. The existing house sits in a depression below the level of the sidewalk. Therefore, the house/site is being raised to allow for adequate storm water drainage without having to rely on pumps (which tend to be a problem since the power often goes out when there’s big storm event). This is essentially the same approach taken in the beach colony, where houses are required to be elevated above the established flood plain. As in those cases, the height of the proposed house is measured from the original (lower) grade and does not create an additional size/height/mass issue, as it is within the allowed building height.

Please let me know if I can provide any additional information in this matter.

Thank you,
Brian Church AIA
Brian Church Architecture
From: Alberto Ortiz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 7:14 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Vince Sampo <[email protected]>; Zarel Lomeli <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Ziskin Residence - Vegetation call outs
Hi Brian,
If we lower the finish floor elevation as you are suggesting a pump system will need to be installed to be able to convey storm water to the street which is something that we typically avoid. If you want to pursue this alternative we are going to need to perform additional calculations and study to determine the amount of cfs tributary to the pump system which we will provide to the project MEP so that he can select an appropriate Pump.

Thanks,
Alberto Ortiz
Sampo Engineering
171 Saxony Rd. Suite 213
Encinitas, CA 92024
(760) 436-0660 ext. 113
Exhibit E 57 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 60 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 173 April 4, 2022 Item 10 2 (760) 436-0659 fax
www.sampoengineering.com
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 9:27 AM
To: Alberto Ortiz <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: Vince Sampo <[email protected]>; Zarel Lomeli <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Ziskin Residence - Vegetation call outs
Hi Alberto,
Several of the comments received from the Planning Department were regarding the amount of grading (fill) proposed.

How much could we lower the entire house and still make the site drainage work? Could we lower it a foot, two feet if necessary?
Let me know what you think.

Thanks,
Brian Church AIA
Brian Church Architecture
Exhibit E 58 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 61 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 174 April 4, 2022 Item 10 1 Jennifer Gavin
From: Arlinepaa <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 9:44 AM
To: Jennifer Gavin
Subject: DRB site visit - APN 300-252-14-00
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.

Jennifer- Following up to our conversation yesterday, we would like to request a site visit to our property which is immediately west of the proposed build of the Zisken residence (APN 300-252-14-00). It would be reassuring to have an unbiased opinion about the height of the proposed fence and the drainage system.

Our address is 612 8th Street. We look forward to hearing back about the next steps.

Thanks,
Arline & David Paa
Exhibit F 59 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 62 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 175 April 4, 2022 Item 10 1 Jennifer Gavin
From: Jill Ellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 8:15 AM
To: Planning Mail Box
Subject: Support for Ziskin project
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.

Good morning.

I am a neighbor of the Ziskin family and I would like to sent a letter of support for their project, APN 300-252-14-00.

Please tell me the best way to accomplish this.

Sincerely,
Jill Ellis
Exhibit F 60 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 63 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 176 April 4, 2022 Item 10

GENERAL CONDITIONS
G-1 [Business License]
Prior to commencement of any work on site, all contractors and subcontractors shall obtain a valid City of Del Mar Business License. The general contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that all subcontractors obtain required Business License and shall retain copies of said permits on site for verification by City staff.

G-2 [Utility Undergrounding Threshold]
If the total cost of new construction exceeds $7,500 (as determined by the Building Department), all new utility service connections shall be placed underground consistent with the provisions of DMMC Section 30.86.210.

G-3 [Development Authorization Limited to Plan Set]
This permit is granted based on submitted plans dated December 7, 2021 and so identified by the staff of the Del Mar Planning and Community Development Department. Revisions to these plans and/or any proposals for modification shall require review and prior authorization from the appropriate entities of the City of Del Mar.

G-4 [Encroachment Permit for Work in Right-of-Way]
Any work proposed or required within a City of Del Mar public right-of-way or access easement, or required within a public right-of-way or access easements pursuant to the conditions of approval of this Permit, shall be subject to the prior receipt of a City of Del Mar Encroachment Permit.

Applications for Encroachment Permits shall include plans depicting all proposed private and public improvements including, but not limited to, improvements involving drainage, grading and/or public utilities. The required Encroachment Permit shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Del Mar in accordance with the procedures set forth in the DMMC and may include requirements for inspections and/or submittal of a security deposit(s). Please note that DRB of plans indicating right-of-way improvements does not constitute approval of the separately required Encroachment Permit.

G-5 [Requirement for Building Permits]
Prior to commencement of work, the applicant or agent shall obtain all required Building Permits.

G-6 [Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Requirement] Owners and builders generating any construction and demolition debris on a project must comply with the minimum requirements regarding recycling or reuse for salvage set forth in the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11. This includes, but is not limited to, the submittal of a Construction Waste Management Plan and a minimum diversion of 65% of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Signage shall be posted on-site with information identifying materials to be diverted.

G-8 [Height and Setback Certifications Prior to Framing Sign Off] Prior to sign-off on the framing inspection for the project, the applicant shall provide a statement from a Licensed Surveyor certifying that the building height and setbacks are in conformance with the approved plans for the project. The survey required herein shall be prepared using City of Del Exhibit G 61 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 64 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 177 April 4, 2022 Item 10 Mar approved vertical benchmarks for building height certification and reported to 0.01 of a foot.

The setback certification shall be based on surveyed property corners as necessary to establish property lines and reported to 0.01 of a foot.

G-9 [Fence/wall Height Limitations]
All fencing, walls, and gates shall conform with all applicable fence height and pool security fencing requirements of the DMMC.

G-10 [Story Pole Removal]
Story poles shall be removed from the property within ten days following the final date of the City’s action on the project application.

G-11 [Plan for Construction-Phase Impacts]
Prior to issuance of Building Permits or commencement of project implementation (whichever comes first), the Applicant shall provide a plan to the Planning Department for construction-phase parking and equipment/materials storage for the project. The plan must include the following:
a. Identification of an on-site material storage location; b. Identification of an on-site equipment storage location; c. Identification of at least two on-site parking space which will remain available throughout the duration of the project;
d. Location of any temporary sanitary facilities;
e. A note stating that “If on-street parking is utilized, a minimum street access clearance of 20ft. will be maintained”;
f. Map displaying any/all haul routes; and
g. Contact information (phone number and Email) for the on-site supervisor(s);

1. This information must also be posted on-site in a location which is readily visible from the public right-of-way for the duration of the project.

The plan required herein shall be subject to the review and written approval of the Planning and Community Development Director, working in consultation with Community Services/Parking Enforcement and Public Works Departments. Haul routes and work and/or storage of material or equipment within a City right-of-way will require the receipt of an Encroachment Permit. The requirements mentioned above may be modified by the Planning and Community Development Director, or his designee, upon a determination that sufficient alternatives have been proposed which achieve a similar level of compliance.

G-11A In addition to the submittal of a Construction Phase Impact Plan, the applicant must place a Construction Parking Placard in all vehicles associated with the project which will be parked off-site. The placard must remain in plain view on the dashboard of the vehicle throughout the duration of the project. A Construction Parking Placard can be obtained from the City of Del Mar Planning Department.

Exhibit G 62 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 65 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 178 April 4, 2022 Item 10 G-12 [Receipt of Demolition Permit]
Prior to the demolition or removal of any structures on the project site, the applicant shall apply for and gain approval for: a Demolition Permit, as required pursuant to the DMMC; and an accompanying Coastal Development Permit, as applicable.

G-13 [Permit Expiration]
This Permit shall expire three years from the date of approval, on December 15, 2024 unless a Building Permit has been issued (if required by the DMMC) and substantial construction has been accomplished in reliance upon the permit. Pursuant to the DMMC, substantial construction is defined as: completion of a minimum of 10% of the total amount of construction authorized by the permit, based on the monetary value of construction costs including grading, site preparation and construction but specifically excluding all costs associated with the acquisition of interest in the project site and all costs associated with the preparation and processing of permits or plans.

G-14 [Preconstruction Meeting]
Prior to any demolition, construction, and/or land disturbances occurring on-site, a preconstruction meeting shall be held. Attendees to this meeting shall include representatives from the City of Del Mar’s Planning and Community Development Department, City Engineer, the Project Contractor/Superintendent, the Project Architect, the Project Engineer, the property owner and any others essential for the proper implementation and completion of this project. At a minimum, the following issues shall be reviewed at this meeting:
a. City of Del Mar inspection requirements.
b. Process for requests for plan modification and determinations of substantial conformance.
c. Discretionary permit conditions and requirements.
d. Construction hour limitations and noise standards.
e. Construction access and parking including equipment/materials storage and maintenance.
f. Work within public rights-of-way and/or easements.
g. Stormwater Best Management Practices.
h. Tree-preservation requirements.
i. Demolition permit requirements.
j. Signage requirements/limitations.
k. Neighborhood impact issues.
l. Key contact information.
m. Business license requirements.
n. Construction and demolition waste diversion requirements o. Any other pertinent construction related activities and or information.

G-15 [Statement of Accuracy/Agreement Regarding Third-Party Lawsuits] Prior to the issuance of building permits or project commencement, whichever comes first, the applicant shall submit a statement to the Planning Department regarding the accuracy of submitted plans/materials and agreeing to hold the City of Del Mar harmless from third-party lawsuits filed challenging the City’s approval of this permit. The agreement shall also include a commitment to defend the City of Del Mar from any third-party lawsuits filed challenging the City’s approval of this Exhibit G 63 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 66 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 179 April 4, 2022 Item 10 permit. The form and content of the statement and agreement required herein shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning and Community Development Director, or his designee G-16 [Compliance with City Noise Regulations]
The applicant and all parties involved with implementation of the project shall comply with the regulations of the DMMC with regard to construction noise. The regulations stipulate that all construction activities are limited to the following periods: between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. / Monday through Friday and between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction activities are prohibited during other hours and on Sundays and City Holidays. The City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.20 of the Del Mar Municipal Code, includes the dates of City Holidays, and can be viewed on the City’s web page (www.delmar.ca.us).

G-17 [Dig Alert]
Prior to excavation or trenching, the applicant shall call Underground Service Alert of Southern California (Dig Alert- 1-800-227-2600) for a mark out of service utilities.

G-18 [Rules for Construction-related Signage]
All construction-related signage posted at the project site shall comply with DMMC Chapter 30.84 (Signs). The pertinent sections of the Sign Chapter allow installation of a total 5.5 square feet of temporary signage on a residential property (that is cumulative of all signs posted). Such signs may be posted for a maximum of sixty (60) days in a calendar year.

The restrictions noted above do not apply to the Development Pending, Construction Noise Notice and Building Permit signs required by the City as part of the project review process.

All construction related signage, including City required signs, shall be removed prior to final approval of the project.

ENGINEERING CONDITIONS:

E-1 [Separate Permits for Off-site Work]
All improvements to off-site facilities, including conditions of this Permit, shall be subject to the receipt of separate City permits, as applicable.

E-2 [Engineering Fee]
Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall provide fees as delineated in the City’s Engineering Review Fee Schedule as funds necessary for Engineering Department review of the proposed site improvements. If additional review beyond the scope outlined in the Engineering Review Fee Schedule becomes necessary, a supplemental deposit(s) will be required.

E-3 [Installation of Public Improvements- Covenant therefore] E-3A The applicant shall perform street repairs on the full width of 8th Street adjacent to the property. 8th Street shall have dig-out performed on any distressed pavement and shall receive a 1-1/2” grind and overlay full width adjacent to property, as depicted on the Preliminary Grading Plan, which shall include all transitions, Exhibit G 64 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 67 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 180 April 4, 2022 Item 10 drainage facilities, and other improvements as deemed necessary by the City Engineer. Said improvements shall be subject to inspection and approval by the City Engineer. A separate cost estimate is required for the work within the public right-of-way. Additional review fees will be required based on the City’s standard fee schedule for public improvements;
E-3B Construct Modified San Diego Regional Standard Drawing G-14 type drive apron to the property;
E-3C A separate cost estimate is required for the work within the public right-of-way.

Additional review fees will be required based on the City’s standard fee schedule for public improvements; and
E-3D Raise all manholes and utility valves to grade after 1-1/2” grind and overlay.

E-4 [Private Drains]
Unless specifically authorized in permit plans, drains in landscape areas discharging to public rights-of-way shall not be allowed. Drains discharging into public rights-of-way may be authorized, subject to review by the City Engineer and only if warranted by unique site conditions. In such cases, design elements shall be incorporated into the plans which reduce the potential for stormwater pollution and nuisance drainage to the maximum extent practicable. The project engineer’s evaluation shall include, but not be limited to, consideration of the potential effect of proposed construction on site groundwater and moisture conditions. All hardscape drains, roof drains, wall drains, and other private drains shall be shown in detail on improvement plans. Site drainage shall be designed such that, in the event of plugged or overloaded inlets/outlets, storm flows will be conveyed in a manner that is not detrimental (including flooding and erosion) to the site or other properties.

E-5 [Grading Plan]
Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall obtain a Grading Permit from the City. A Grading Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of City’s “Applicant’s Guide to Procedures for a Grading Permit.” The Grading Plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall:

E-5A The grading for the project shall be performed under the observation of a Registered Civil Engineer whose responsibility shall be to coordinate site inspection and testing to ensure compliance with the approved Grading Plan. The project Engineer shall submit reports to the City Engineer to verify compliance, as deemed necessary.

E-5B A topographic map shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer or a Licensed Land Surveyor. The topographic map shall indicate property lines, topographic features and existing and/or proposed structures. Said map shall include two-foot contour lines and/or sufficient spot elevations to clearly represent existing and proposed topographical features, and existing and proposed drainage patterns.

Survey shall extend minimum 25 feet beyond limits of work. Said map shall also Exhibit G 65 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 68 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 181 April 4, 2022 Item 10 show entire property boundary including any assumed found monuments, and bearings and distances based on record information;
E-5C Depict the location of property lines and topographic features of the site that adequately address how private storm water is to be collected, conveyed, and discharged on or across the subject site with respect to the proposed project; E-5D Include a grading cost estimate for review, based on the City of San Diego’s Unit Price List;
E-5E Include provisions to collect, convey, and discharge storm water in an appropriate manner, considering the added impact of impervious surface area to the site; E-5F Include provisions to ensure that storm water will not be concentrated and discharged across adjacent properties;
E-5G Include a Hydrology/Hydraulic Report prepared by a Registered Engineer that addresses how storm water will be adequately collected and conveyed on and across the subject property. The Report shall also address the tributary area for run-off directed to and across the subject property. The Report shall include calculations and details demonstrating that if proposed inlets/outlets, etc. are plugged or overloaded, the site is capable of conveying storm flows in a manner that is not detrimental (including flooding and erosion) to surrounding properties.

The Report shall address both existing and proposed conditions. Calculations to include 2-year water quality event and 100-year storm event with mitigation for any increase in flows or change in drainage patterns;
E-5H Incorporate all recommendations pursuant to the Hydrology/Hydraulic Report prepared for the project. This includes the detailing in the plan set of any bio retention/infiltration or vegetated swales which are proposed. Mitigate for any increase in runoff generated by this development.

E-5I Include mitigation measures and project modifications as recommended in the required Geotechnical Report/investigation prepared for the project; E-5J Depict the location of erosion control devices to be implemented in the event of rainfall;
E-5K The methods for providing temporary erosion control during the construction phase of the project, complete with the inclusion of standard grading and erosion control notes on the plans;
E-5L Include methods to ensure retaining wall sub-drains and sump pumps will not discharge onto City streets, as they contribute to nuisance water. Sub-drains and sump pumps shall discharge on private property to allow percolation back into the soil;
Exhibit G 66 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 69 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 182 April 4, 2022 Item 10 E-5M Ensure existing or proposed private pipe outlets will not convey or discharge nuisance water (i.e., from irrigation, hardscape run-off, planter area drains, French drains, etc.) onto adjacent streets or into the public right-of-way. The applicant shall provide methods to eliminate the discharge of nuisance water; E-5N Ensure that the development will minimize the amount of impervious surface area and maximize the on-site dissipation of storm water run-off; E-5O Include storm drain run-off "Best Management Practices" that minimize the volumes of urban run-off discharge to City rights-of-way, as acceptable to the City Engineer. Indicate how the proposed bio-infiltration/retention area or bio-swale will discharge off-site without causing erosion;
E-5P Provide elevations and slope call-outs to clarify how water will drain around the proposed patio hardscape, with assurances the runoff will not be conveyed over sensitive topographic features;
E-5Q Include a five (5) foot wide buffer zone to be maintained along the edge of pavement along the street frontage. No obstructions (i.e., walls, trees, benches, etc.) shall be permitted within this area;
E-5R Include landscaping plans with characteristics that maximize infiltration, provide retention, reduce irrigation and storm water run-off, use efficient irrigation, and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; E-5S Ensure that the grading and other construction activities meet the provisions specified in the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), San Diego Region, Order R9-2013-0001, NPDES No. CAS0109266 – Section D.2 and subsequent orders;
E-5T Following construction completion, the project designer shall inspect as-built improvements. Significant discrepancies, if any, between the approved plans and as-built conditions shall be brought to the attention of the Planning and Community Development Department and City Engineer. An as-built plan prepared by the project designer will be required. Prior to final sign-off by the City Engineer, the project designer shall sign the as-built plan indicating that the project was completed in accordance with said plan; and E-5U Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall post a security in an amount approved by the City Engineer for the proposed grading. Said security shall be in a form acceptable to the City and shall remain in place until completion of the grading and final approval by the City. The amount shall be based on 25% of the approved grading cost estimate prepared as a part of the Grading Permit; E-6 [Geotechnical Report/investigation Requirement]
Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall provide a Geotechnical Report for the project. The Report shall be prepared, signed and sealed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and a Geotechnical Engineer or Registered Civil Engineer. This Report shall be Exhibit G 67 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 70 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 183 April 4, 2022 Item 10 subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, City Building Department, and if deemed necessary, a third-party with expertise in geotechnical issues. The report required herein shall:

E-6A Include all standard information as required by the City’s Grading Ordinance; E-6B Evaluate existing site constraints;
E-6C Evaluate potential effect of proposed construction on properties; E-6D Provide any mitigation measures as necessary;
E-6E Provide recommendations for any special construction methods as necessary; E-6F Include the preparation of field tests to be performed at the site during construction, so as to ensure that field conditions are suitable for the approved construction. The results of such tests may necessitate revisions to the project with such revisions subject to review by the appropriate City entities;
E6G Provide recommendations for back-cuts for the construction of retaining walls.

These recommendations shall include a time limit that the back-cuts can remain in place without either creating a stable backfill, or completing construction of the approved retaining walls. If the recommended time deadlines are not met, the applicant, by signing these conditions, grants the City permission to work on their private property to secure the back-cuts, and use the cash security to perform the work; and
E-6H Temporary shoring will be required for this project and the geotechnical consultant shall provide necessary geotechnical parameters and recommendations, including maximum cuts and time limits for shoring.

E-7 [Authorization for Off-site Work]
E-7A Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall obtain letters of permission from affected property owners if construction or construction access is required across property lines. This includes the grading as depicted in the preliminary grading plan and the construction of retaining wall along property lines; and
E-7B The following note shall be included on the plans for the Permit: “No grading shall occur outside the limits of the approved grading plan unless prior written authorization is obtained from the City and the owners of any other affected properties.”
E-8 [Grading – Separate Permits for Borrow or Disposal Site] A separate Grading Plan shall be submitted and approved and a separate Grading Permit issued for any off-site borrow or disposal site, if located within City limits. An Encroachment Permit will be required to identify the haul route proposed for this purpose.

Exhibit G 68 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 71 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 184 April 4, 2022 Item 10 If the borrow or disposal site is located outside of the City, the applicant shall provide evidence of receipt of required permits/authorizations.

E-9 [Standard Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SWMP)]
Prior to issuance of Development Permits, the applicant shall submit a Priority SWMP for City review and approval that addresses the following:

E-9A Control the post-development peak storm water run-off discharge rates and velocities to maintain or reduce pre-development downstream erosion; E-9B Minimize pollutants of concern from urban runoff through implementation of source control BMPs;
E-9C Remove pollutants of concern from urban runoff through implementation of structural BMPs;
E-9D Protect slopes and channels from eroding;
E-9E Comply with the City Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP); E-9F Identify affected receiving water bodies; and
E-9G Include an exhibit that clearly shows the limits and quantities of impervious area in both the pre and post development conditions.

The structural BMPs required herein shall be designed so as to filter or treat the volume or flow outlined in the numeric sizing criteria outlined below:

Volume
Volume-based BMPs shall be designed to filter or treat the volume of runoff produced from a 24-hour 85th percentile storm event, as determined from the local historical rainfall record;
E-10 [BMP details]
Prior to issuance of Development Permits, all post construction BMPs shall be shown in detail on the construction plans and submitted to the City for review and approval. For all post-construction treatment control BMPs, submit an operation and maintenance manual detailing requirements for the property owner to maintain BMPs into perpetuity. An easement shall be granted to the City for inspection of post-construction treatment control BMPs as needed. The project shall comply with the existing and subsequent Del Mar Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Plan and the State of California and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

Exhibit G 69 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 72 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 185 April 4, 2022 Item 10 E-11 [Soil Stabilization]
The applicant shall utilize sediment controls only as a supplement to erosion prevention for keeping sediment on-site during construction – NEVER as a single or primary method.

E-11A The applicant shall clear and grade only the areas on the project site that are necessary for construction. These areas shall be clearly denoted on the plans; E-11B The applicant shall minimize exposure time of disturbed soil areas; E-11C The applicant shall submit a schedule to the City for review and approval, with proposed dates, demonstrating the minimization of grading during the wet season and coinciding the grading with dry weather periods, permanent revegetation and landscaping as early as feasible, temporary stabilization and reseeding of disturbed soil areas as early as feasible; and
E-11D The applicant shall stabilize all slopes per City approved method.

E-12 [Access to Water Meters]
Access to proposed or existing water meters located on or immediately adjacent to the property shall remain open and unobstructed at all times. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that no structure or vegetation is proposed so as to restrict access to the water meter. In the event access is blocked by project implementation, the applicant shall be responsible for the removal any obstruction at his/her expense or shall pay for the cost of relocating the water meter to allocation acceptable to the Public Works Department.

E-13 [Updated Title Report]
Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall prepare an updated title report for the property.

E-14 [Compliance with City of Del Mar JURMP]
This project shall conform to the construction component in the latest edition of the City's Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP).

E-15 [Design of inlets/outlets]
Site drainage shall be designed such that, in the event of plugged or overloaded inlets/outlets, storm flows will be conveyed in a manner that is not detrimental to the site or other properties.

E-16 [Sewer Service]
The sewer connection to the public main must be a gravity connection. If a pump is required in order to service the residence, it must transition to gravity flow prior to connection to the public system. A sewer backflow prevention device will also be required if a pump is proposed. The existing Sewer lateral shall be videoed and certified clear of obstructions or damage by a licensed plumber. Should the lateral be damaged, a new lateral shall be installed to service the residence.

Exhibit G 70 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 73 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 186 April 4, 2022 Item 10 E-17 [Proposed Retaining Wall]
The proposed retaining walls shall be designed and constructed completely within the property. No portion of the wall or footing shall extend across the property line. The footing limits of retaining walls shall be shown on the plans together with profiles of the proposed retaining walls located along property lines and right-of-ways.

E-18 [Public Improvements]
The public street improvements can be included within the Grading Plan. A separate cost estimate is required for the work within the public right-of-way, for fee generation purposes. Additional review fees will be required based on the City’s standard fee schedule for public improvements.

E-19 [Driveway Slope]
The Grading Plan must include a profile of the proposed driveway. The longitudinal slope must not exceed 8% within 10’ of the street. The slope must not exceed 6% within 25’ of the garage door. Between these two areas, the slope must not exceed 25%.

E-20 [Material Hauling and Construction Worker Parking] For material delivery vehicles equal to, or larger than two-axle, six-tire single unit truck (SU) size or larger as defined by FHWA Standards, the applicant shall submit a truck hauling route that conforms to City of Del Mar Municipal Code or to the approval of the City Engineer. A letter from the applicant confirming the intention to use this hauling route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and the City Engineering Department, and approved, prior to the issuance of any City permits. All material hauling activities including but not limited to, adherence to the approved route, hours of operation, staging of materials, dust control and street maintenance shall be the responsibility of the applicant. All storage and office trailers will be kept off the public right-of-way. Tracking of dirt onto City streets and walks will not be allowed. The applicant must provide an approved method of cleaning tires and trimming loads on-site. Any job-related dirt and/or debris that impacts the public right-of-way shall be removed immediately. No wash down of dirt into storm drains will be allowed. All material hauling activities shall be done in accordance with applicable City ordinances and conditions of approval. Violation of such may be cause for suspension of work.

The applicant shall provide a construction-parking plan that minimizes the effect of construction worker parking in the neighborhood and shall include an estimate of the number of workers that will be present on the site during the various phases of construction and indicate where sufficient off-street parking will be utilized and identify any locations for off-site material deliveries. Said plan shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and the City Engineer prior to issuance of City permits and shall be enforced during construction. Failure to enforce the parking plan may result in suspension of the City permits.

Exhibit G 71 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 74 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 187 April 4, 2022 Item 10 E-21 [Site conditions]
E-21A The applicant shall restrict hours of work for the use of heavy equipment during grading and improvements between the hours of 7:30AM to 5:00PM, this includes the warmup of equipment. Saturday, Sunday and City holiday work is prohibited; E-21B Any under grounding of SDG&E facilities serving the site or other utilities shall be done at the applicant’s expense; and
E-21C All construction activities undertaken shall comply with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. In cases of conflict between the City’s Municipal Code, these standard conditions of approval, the governing priority shall be, to the extent legally permitted, as follows: 1) City’s Municipal Code regulations; 2) City’s General Plan; 3) Standard Conditions.

FIRE CONDITIONS:

F-1 [Class A Roof]
All structures shall be provided with a Class “A” Roof covering to the satisfaction of the California Building and Fire Code. NO wood shake shingles are allowed.

F-2 [Access Road Minimum Dimensions]
Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed improved width of not less than 20 feet; curb line to curb line, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Exception: Single-Family residential driveways; serving no more than four single-family dwellings, shall have minimum of 16 feet, curb line to curb line, of unobstructed improved width. Access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of not less than 75,000 pounds.

F-7 [Gates]
All drive gates, pedestrian gates or other structures or devices, which could obstruct fire access roadways or otherwise hinder emergency operations or personnel, are prohibited unless they meet standards approved by the Del Mar Municipal Code 10.04 and California Fire Code. Gates across fire access roadways shall be automatic and equipped with approved emergency key operated switches overriding all command functions and opens the gate(s). Power supply shall be connected to a reliable municipal source. Gates accessing four (4) or more residences or residential lots, or gates accessing hazardous, institutional, and educational or assembly occupancy group structures, shall also be equipped with approved emergency traffic control activating strobe sensor(s), which will activate the gate on the approach of emergency apparatus with a battery back-up or manual mechanical disconnect in case of power failure. Pedestrian gates shall have a Knox Key Box installed and a key provided for any locked gate. Knox Box mounting height shall be 60 to 70 inches above finished grade maximum. Knox key switch mounting heights for drive gates shall not exceed 42 to 60 inches above finished grade.

Exhibit G 72 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 75 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 188 April 4, 2022 Item 10 F-9 [Construction Materials]
Prior to delivery of combustible building construction materials to the project site all of the following conditions shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Fire Department:

1. All wet and dry utilities shall be installed and approved by the appropriate inspecting department or agency;

2. As a minimum the first lift of asphalt paving shall be in place to provide a permanent all weather surface for emergency vehicles; and

3. All fire hydrants shall be installed, in service and accepted by the Fire Department and applicable water district.

F-12 [Automatic Fire Sprinkler System-Commercial, Multi-Family And Residential Structures And Garages; Fire Department Connections For Multi-Family And Commercial Sprinkler Systems And Related Control Valves] All structures shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system designed and installed to the satisfaction of the California Fire Code and Del Mar Municipal Code 10.04.

Plans for the automatic fire sprinkler system shall be submitted prior to start of construction and approved by the City designated fire plans examiner prior to any on site building construction inspection (other than slab, grading inspection) by a building official.

Fire Department Connections (FDC) for fire sprinkler and standpipe systems shall meet the following requirements: shall be mounted at the following height(s); 36 to 42 inches above finished grade, to the top of connection.
• If FDC is installed separate from the Backflow/Double Detector Check, it shall be located a minimum of 5 feet from the Backflow/DDC valve. • When an FDC is attached to Backflow/DDC, the FDC mounting height shall still be 36 to 42 inches max above finished grade
• If the Backflow/DDC is installed without an FDC, both OS&Y valve handles shall be mounted 36 to 42 inches above finished grade.
• Bushes, trees and similar foliage shall not be located within a radius of 5 feet of an FDC or Backflow/DDC valve assembly. Ground cover landscape is acceptable.” F-13 [Smoke and CO Detection]
Hard-wired Smoke detectors shall be installed in new construction when valuation of project exceeds $1000.00, as required by California Building or Fire Codes.

F-17 [Basement]
All basements shall be designed and equipped with emergency exit systems consisting of operable windows and lightwells. All lightwells if serving as one or more exits from a basement shall be equipped with fixed metal ladders as part of the exit. Lightwells that intrude into sideyard or backyard setbacks of five feet or less shall require a hinged grating covering the lightwell opening. The grating shall be capable of supporting a weight of 250 pound person; yet able to be opened by someone of minimal strength with no special knowledge, effort or key or tool. Any modification of previously approved plans related to this condition (F-17) shall be subject to re-submittal and review by appropriate City of Del Mar staff (Fire, Planning and Building).

Exhibit G 73 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 76 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 189 April 4, 2022 Item 10 F-19 [Fuel Modification Zones/Fire Breaks]
The applicant shall provide and maintain fire/fuel breaks to the satisfaction of the Del Mar Fire Department and California Fire Code. The size of fire/fuel breaks and composition shall be determined by the Fire Department and shown on the improvement /grading plans and final map and building plans.

F-20 [Fire Resistive Construction Requirements for Wildland/Urban Interface Areas] Structures shall meet all wildland/urban interface standards to the satisfaction of the California Fire Code. As a minimum, structures shall meet the following fire resistive construction requirements: (1) Exterior wall surfacing materials shall be of noncombustible materials; (2) Glazing materials shall be tempered multi-paned glass panels; (3) Skylights within one-half mile of the wildland area shall be tempered glass; (4) Ventilation in exterior fire resistive walls, they shall be constructed to maintain the fire resistive integrity of the wall; (5) Roof covering shall not be less than a Class “A” roof assembly; (6) Vinyl windows, if used, shall meet the following requirements: (a) Frame and sash are comprised of vinyl material with welded corners; (b) Metal sash profiles are certified in AAMA Lineal Certification Program (verified with either an AAMA product label or Certified Products Directory); and (e) Certified and labeled to ANSI/AAMA/NWWDA 101/I>S>2-97 for structural requirements; and (7) Structures shall have an automatic fire sprinkler system installed as required by Del Mar Municipal Code 10.04, California Fire Code and California Residential Code. (8) Landscape plans are required for all new and remodel dwellings located within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (WUI) areas. All proposed vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground cover) shall be fire resistive plant material. All vegetation shall comply with San Diego County Guidelines “ACCEPTABLE PLANTS FOR DEFENSIBLE SPACE IN FIRE PRONE AREAS”.

F-21 [Solar Photovoltaic Installations - Solar Panels]
Solar Photovoltaic Systems shall be installed per California State Fire Marshal installation guidelines. City of Del Mar designated Fire Plans Examiner will conduct plan reviews and inspections for all Solar Photovoltaic Systems on commercial buildings.

WATER CONSERVATION CONDITIONS
WC-01 [Compliance with City and State Water Conservation Policies and Regulations] Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a Landscape Documentation Package (LDP) for the project prepared by a landscape architect or landscape contractor licensed by the State of California. The LDP required herein shall include anticipated water use calculations for the project's landscape and irrigation components. The LDP shall be accompanied by a certification from the preparer that the LDP is in compliance with the City's adopted water conservation policies in effect at the time of LDP preparation, including Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 23.60 (Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance) and any guidelines adopted by the City for such ordinance. The preparer shall also certify that the LDP is in compliance with the Governor's Executive Order Nos. B-29-15 and B-36-15, which call for compliance with landscape/irrigation water use standards set by the California Exhibit G 74 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 77 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 190 April 4, 2022 Item 10 Building Standards Commission and the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

The LDP shall be subject to the review and written approval of the Director of Planning and Community Development (Director). The Director shall, as deemed necessary, work in consultation with the City's Landscape Architect, with the costs for such consultation to be borne by the applicant or his/her designee. If the submitted LDP is found not to be in compliance with the standards referenced herein, it shall be revised accordingly and resubmitted for compliance review.

In the event that compliance with this condition results in the need to modify a landscape or irrigation plan approved as part of a discretionary permit granted by the City, the Director shall have discretion to authorize changes of landscape materials in a manner that retains like-for-like consistency with the parameters of the project's approved discretionary permit, with such parameters to include: the size of landscape material to be installed and its anticipated mature height; and the location of any trees to be installed.

WC-02 [City Inspection for Compliance with Project's Landscape Documentation Package] Prior to final sign-off on implementation, the project shall be subject to inspection by City staff for compliance with the Landscape Documentation Package (LDP) required pursuant to the project's conditions of approval. The inspections shall include review for compliance with the irrigation and landscape plans included as component parts of the LDP.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS:

S-12 [Lighting Plan]
Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall provide a Lighting Plan for the project identifying all exterior lighting fixtures proposed for installation on or around the structures authorized in this Permit. The Plan required herein shall be subject to the review and written approval of the Planning and Community Development Director and shall be reviewed to ensure that the lighting will be of a low-level intensity and that the fixtures will be installed so that the source of light will not be directed to or visible from adjacent properties or adjacent rights-of-way.

In the event that the applicant disagrees with the Planning and Community Development Director’s determination on the acceptability of the Lighting Plan, the applicant shall have the opportunity to present the Plan to the Design Review Board for approval at a noticed public hearing.

S-14 [Pool Fencing]
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a plan for pool security fencing. Any installation of walls or fences required to provide such security fencing shall be subject to the prior receipt of all required permits.

Exhibit G 75 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 78 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 191 April 4, 2022 Item 10

BRIAN CHURCH ARCHITECTURE
507 S. CEDROS AVE , SOLANA BEACH , C A 92 075 | TEL 858 793 3437 | WWW. BRIANCHURCHARCHITECTURE .COM

February 3, 2022
Design Revisions for Design Review submittal #2
Plan Check No.: DRB21-018, CDP21-012, LC21-008
Project Name: ZISKIN RESIDENCE
Project Location: 624 8TH STREET, DEL MAR, CA, 92014
Project Contact: Brian Church, Brian Church Architecture ([email protected]) Attn.: Jennifer Gavin
Jennifer,
Based on comments received at the Design Review hearing on December 15th, 2021, we have revised the design and plans. Following is an outline of the comments received, discussion of the issues, and the related design changes.

Entry/Foyer
Issue: Several DRB Members discussed the height of the entry/foyer element and asked whether it could be lowered.

Explanation: As submitted for the first Design Review, the entry (foyer) was shown as a single level roof/ceiling with a ceiling height of 13’-0” so that it would provide head clearance as the stairs ascended to the second floor, where the ceiling height is 8’-0”.

Solution: The front section of the entry was lowered by 5’-0” to have a ceiling height of 8’-0”. The roof behind (north) remains at 8’-0” from the second floor as required for head clearance. In addition to significantly lowering this element, this change moved the second floor and roof in this area back by 4’-0”. See building elevations on sheet A4 and building section C on sheet A6.

East Elevation
Issue: Several DRB members discussed the east elevation and asked if it could be softened.

Explanation: Much of the east elevation encloses the entry stairs, and therefore must be two stories in height.

As previously submitted, this wall was more than sixteen feet in length, two stories in height, and all stucco.

This created a fairly large blank wall. The concrete walkway along the side of the house precluded the ability to landscape along the wall.

Solutions: As discussed above, the entry has now been lowered and stepped back to the north, which also shortens and lowers the wall area facing east. The horizontal siding material has now been extended to wrap around the east side of the structure so that the wall is no longer a blank stucco wall. The adjacent walkway was moved away from the wall to create a planter area where we have added a row of plants to further soften this elevation. See building elevations on sheet A4.

EXHIBIT B 79 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 192 April 4, 2022 Item 10

BRIAN CHURCH ARCHITECTURE
507 S. CEDROS AVE , SOLANA BEACH , C A 92 075 | TEL 858 793 3437 | WWW. BRIANCHURCHARCHITECTURE .COM

Privacy to/from the east
Issue: Several DRB members discussed the location of windows facing east concerning privacy with the neighbors to the east.

Explanation: There are only two windows facing east. These windows are small and are located in the powder room and pantry respectively. The windows were previously noted as obscured glass, which may not have been clearly explained.

Solutions: The powder room has been reconfigured so that the window in that room faces north instead of east.

Both windows are to be obscured (frosted) glass. See building elevations on sheet A4 and the second-floor plan on sheet A2.

Structural Siting
Issue: Several DRB members discussed the location of the house on the lot, specifically, the locations of the entry and second floor.

Explanation: I believe that these concerns may have been exacerbated by a couple of inaccuracies in the previous drawings and story poles. The story poles indicated that the proposed upper roof line extended all the way to the east side yard setback, when in actuality, the entry element had been lowered (in the submitted drawings) by more than eighteen inches. As discussed above, this element has now been lowered much more.

Secondly, the site plan incorrectly showed the edge of street paving roughly four feet south of the property line when it is actually more than eighteen feet(!)
When comparing the siting of the proposed structure with the (two story) guest house on the property to the east, a couple of the DRB members question whether that was a fair comparison since, although that structure is closer to the street that the proposed Ziskin house, it is obscured by several large trees and other shrubs. In reviewing this situation, it became apparent that the trees providing the additional screening of the neighbor’s two-story guest house are located in the public right of way. Duplicating this (planting large trees in the right of way) would be possible but would require a separate approvals process through City Council.

Solutions: The revised story poles now accurately show the revised entry element (6’-6” lower than previously shown by the story poles). The site plan, elevations and sections now accurately show the location of the street in relation to the proposed structure. Please note that, as indicated in section C/A6, the second floor is 46’-0” from the edge of street paving.

Second floor deck
Issue: Several DRB members discussed the location and size of the second-floor deck.

Explanation: The deck has already been oriented toward the street as suggested in the Design Guidelines.

Within the Design Review Ordinance and Design Guidelines, there are no limitations on the size of second floor decks that face the street (as the proposed deck does). The deck was also placed fifteen feet away from the property line as suggested in the Design Guidelines for decks that do not face the street. This abundance of caution was intended to assure that the roof deck would not create privacy issues with the neighbor to the west (Arline Paa).

EXHIBIT B 80 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 193 April 4, 2022 Item 10

BRIAN CHURCH ARCHITECTURE
507 S. CEDROS AVE , SOLANA BEACH , C A 92 075 | TEL 858 793 3437 | WWW. BRIANCHURCHARCHITECTURE .COM

Solutions: As suggested by DRB members, to increase the buffer between the roof deck and any neighbors, we have added a perimeter of planters (also suggested in the Design Guidelines for decks not facing the street). As also as suggested by DRB members, the area of the roof deck has been reduced (by 111 sf). See building elevations on sheet A4 and A5, and the second-floor plan on sheet A2.

EXHIBIT B 81 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 194 April 4, 2022 Item 10 1 Jennifer Gavin
From: Kelly Welch <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 7:57 PM
To: Jennifer Gavin
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Ziskin Application
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 Del Mar Review Board:

My name is Kelly Welch. I spoke briefly at the meeting on Wednesday, Dec. 15 in support of the Ziskin’s application to build on their property at 624 8th Street. I wanted to add a few more points.

At the meeting, the South side of 8th Street was referred to as the City of San Diego. That is not the case. I live in a “two story” home in Olde Del Mar 3 homes West of the Ziskin’s on the South side of 8th Street at 431. West of me on 8th Street are 4 more two-story homes and also directly across the street from me is a two-story home, which is only 3 doors down from the Ziskin’s. The owners of 434 8th Street, which is 4 doors down from the Ziskins would like to build a two-story home also. As the properties are sold and as long as the homes are situated so as not to block views, because our lots are not that large, a two-story home is necessary to give a family the space needed.

We on 8th Street would like to see these older, run-down homes brought up to date to make the street eventually beautiful as is fitting for our wonderful beach city. The home the Ziskin’s are attempting to build would be such an improvement to 8th Street and to our community. It is beautiful and well thought out. It is so nice to see younger families coming to live in our Community, but we have to allow them the opportunity to do so.

Sincerely,
Kelly Welch
EXHIBIT C 82 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 195 April 4, 2022 Item 10

TELEPHONE
760.943.0100

FACSIMILE
760.943.0942

THE LAW OFFICE OF
RICHARD R. RICE

ATTORNEY AT LAW
1084 NORTH EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE B121
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024-1334
EMAIL
[email protected]

WEBSITE
www.rrrlaw.net
February 10, 2022
VIA EMAIL ONLY - [email protected]; [email protected] Ashley Jones
City Manager
City of Del Mar
1050 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar CA 92014
Leslie Devaney
City Attorney
City of Del Mar
1050 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar CA 92014
Re: DRB 21-018
CDP 21-012
LC-21-008
Mses. Jones and Devaney:

I represent Janet Wilson and Nigel Hook, owners of the property located at 635 Hoska Drive, Del Mar CA 92014. I am writing concerning the Design Review Board’s (“DRB”) consideration of the above-referenced applications (collectively, the “Applications”) submitted to the City of Del Mar (the “City”) by Matthew and Chelsea Ziskin (collectively “Ziskin”), owners of the property located at 624 8th Street, Del Mar CA 92014 (the “Ziskin Property”).

The Applications initially came before the DRB on December 15, 2021. In interactions between my clients and board member Tina Thomas prior to the December 15 hearing, and based on statements made by Ms. Thomas at the hearing, it is clear that she is biased and should recuse herself from participation in the consideration of the Applications.

Ms. Thomas and fellow DRB member, Gala Yayla, visited my clients’ home on December 10 as part of their preparation for the December 15 hearing. From inside my clients’ home, Ms. Wilson showed them the view which is under dispute because it is directly related to the consideration of the Applications under the City’s Design Review Ordinance (“DRO”).

Ms. Thomas immediately questioned Ms. Wilson about an “unauthorized” trimming of a hedge. Ms. Wilson explained that at the time the trimming occurred the hedge was believed to be on the property line and that it had been maintained as such for fifteen years. Ms. Thomas responded “that” would be decided at the upcoming City Council hearing referring to my clients’ request for a de novo hearing regarding the Planning Commission’s denial of their application under the City’s Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight ordinance.

The meeting inside became uncomfortable because Ms. Thomas unnecessarily brought up the hedge and view dispute two more times. Ms. Wilson showed both Ms. Thomas and Ms.

Yayla a report created by Mark Sarojak, an expert in satellite imagery. After reviewing the images, Ms. Yayla noted there was a consistency between the 2012 and 2015 images (as EXHIBIT C 83 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 196 April 4, 2022 Item 10 Ashley Jones
Leslie Devaney
February 10, 2022

opposed to the other “green” images) and pointed this out to Ms. Thomas. Ms. Thomas turned away and did not acknowledge this new information. When Ms. Wilson replied with something Ms. Thomas didn’t want to hear, Ms. Thomas would cut Ms. Wilson off and defer to the upcoming City Council hearing. Repeatedly bringing up the view dispute, and then not listening to my clients’ concerns on the merits of the Applications under the DRO, demonstrates Ms. Thomas bias against them.

When discussing the bulk and mass concerns under the DRO, Ms. Thomas volunteered that a two-story design would allow for a larger yard, and adding that she, like the Ziskins, had 4 kids and so she knew how difficult that was. Mses. Thomas and Yayla then went out onto my clients’ deck and entertainment area.

Next, the group went onto my clients’ lawn and Ms. Wilson pointed out the looming story poles and how a structure that tall would affect the use of their yard and the ability to enjoy their property and sunsets. The story poles were imposing and Ms. Yayla recognized the impact it would have as she was toured the property, looking at different angles, and considering whether the design was consistent with the DRO. Ms. Thomas made no comment, and seemingly failed to consider the DRO and the project’s impact from my clients’ point of view.

Ms. Wilson suggested that the group go up to the garage/guest house balcony to view the neighborhood. Ms. Wilson again attempted to explain to Ms. Thomas the impact a twostory home would have on being able to enjoy her home. Ms. Thomas had the Ziskin plans with her which showed the existing structure was out of compliance being over FAR by 19 square feet. Ms. Thomas point out that to be in compliance the new home would be small and again brought up the Ziskins’ need to increase the size of their home to accommodate their four children. Ms. Wilson observed that the Ziskins were aware of the character of the property when they purchased it, and that the fact that their family has since grown would not be a justification for the construction of a new home that did not comply with the DRO. Ms.

Thomas took offense to that comment by saying, “Watch it, I have four kids.” It was obvious to Ms. Wilson from this exchange, that Ms. Thomas related on a personal level to the Ziskins, and was biased against my clients.

The DRB is a quasi-judicial body the role of which is to (1) take evidence from affected parties, and (2) make decisions based on its findings. In making its decisions, the DRB is to be guided by existing laws, regulations, policies, or standards. It is not appropriate for board members to base their decisions on what they believe the laws, regulations, policies, or standards should be.

During the DRB meeting on December 15th it was disconcerting to my clients how obviously biased Ms. Thomas was. Not only was Ms. Thomas obviously biased, but her comments were in direct conflict with the DRO which she had sworn as a member of the DRB to uphold.

EXHIBIT C 84 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 197 April 4, 2022 Item 10 Ashley Jones
Leslie Devaney
February 10, 2022

The DRB’s Policy Manual provides at Section 1.1 that the purpose of the design review process is to ensure that the design of a proposed project:

1. Complies with the development standards in the Zoning Code (Title 30 of the Municipal Code;

2. Does not violate the design regulations set forth in the DRO (Chapter 23.08 of the DMMC);

3. As applicable, does not conflict with any of the land conservation findings set forth in Section 23.33.040 of the DMMC; and

4. As applicable, meets all conditions for a Coastal Development Permit set forth in Section 30.75.140 of the DMMC.

The Policy Manual further provides that, “During deliberation and decision-making, the DRB shall address only how the proposed design conforms to the Zoning Code, DRO, Land Conservation Ordinance, Coastal Development Ordinance, and Tree Removal provisions, as applicable. In its deliberation and decision-making, the DRB shall consider the Citywide Design Guidelines in determining compliance with the DRO.”

Again, it is not the role of the DRB to pass judgement on policies. All policy decisions, and the discretion that may be exercised, are reserved for the Planning Commission and City Council. The DRB is to apply the existing DRO to the application under review. It is not appropriate for the members of the DRB to consider or impose personal design preferences or opinions.

Ms. Thomas’s qualifications to serve as a member of the DRB in the first place are questionable. This is Ms. Thomas’ first term as a DRB member which began on April 5, 2021.

Ms. Thomas previously applied four times to serve on the DRB and was not selected. She applied twice for an ad hoc committee created to review the DRB’s internal processes and was not selected.

In an email to Matt Bator, Principal Planner, dated August 3, 2017 with a subject line, “AD Hoc Design Review proposed guidelines REVIEW,” Ms. Thomas expressed her personal opinions about what should be changed in the DRO. In the years since that email was sent none of Ms. Thomas’ opinions have been adopted into the DRO.

Having finally been appointed to the DRB, it is apparent that Ms. Thomas still holds those opinions and seeks to impose them rather than following the existing DRO. Again, it is not the role of the DRB to pass judgment on policies. All policy decisions are reserved for the Planning Commission and the City Council. The DRB is to apply the existing DRO to the application under review. It is not appropriate for the members of the DRB to consider or impose their personal design preferences or opinions.

EXHIBIT C 85 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 198 April 4, 2022 Item 10 Ashley Jones
Leslie Devaney
February 10, 2022

One example of Ms. Thomas’s bias is that during the hearing on the Applications she repeatedly requested Brian Church, Ziskin’s architect, to show the image below.

This is a Photoshopped image to depict how the proposed new home will supposedly appear from the street view. For a number of reasons, this image cannot reasonably be used as a depiction of how the new home would actually appear:

1. Photoshop (not accurate);

2. It is the most complementary angle;

3. It does not show lot lines;

4. A car is covering 25% of the image; and,

5. The image most likely does not accurately depict the pad being raised 2.5-feet.

Relying on a misleading image as a depiction of fact, Ms. Thomas observed, “The scale of it - It is tucked in it is … umm even though there’s some grading involved … it’s still below street grade. So, it’s going to read smaller scale by virtue that any home that’s below grade it’s just gonna to get more diminished because of that.”
Again, relying on a misleading Photoshopped image, she continued, “If you look at the contrary - to the neighbor to the east, they are risen and you can look at the view I’m looking at it, you can see the difference between a home down below grade and the one on the east above grade. And if you put them side-by-side they’d look different but even when one is up higher EXHIBIT C 86 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 199 April 4, 2022 Item 10 Ashley Jones
Leslie Devaney
February 10, 2022

than the other it looks different so being below grade is definitively not… it’s helping the scale.

It’s not a scale problem.”
Later, Ms. Thomas asked the other members of the board to explain their concerns about “looming” and she again asked that the misleading image be displayed, saying, “It’s a street rendering and it shows how it really sits down on the lot and it just doesn’t read excessive because the majority of the home is below grade so your second story doesn’t read as 24-feet. It reads as … I think someone even mentioned it … 18-feet which is about a one-story house. So, it doesn’t read especially you’re looking at lot like I’m looking at like the neighbors it doesn’t read is a two-story home from all vantage points… some, some of them yes, but so overall I think that”
The architectural scale drawing contained in the packet provided by staff to Ms. Thomas shows actual elevations with the proposed increase in elevation. The green on the lower right side appears to be the only part of the house which is below street grade. The “majority” of the house is NOT below street grade. In fact, the majority of the house is looming over Ms.

Wilson’s yard.

Ms. Thomas continued, “And I think we have to be really careful that if we sit there and try to align our lots so they’re all in a row that starts to become a little bit too worrisome and tie into being more compatible with a tract neighborhood … this is a meandering neighborhood.

The beauty of this neighborhood is that you have that our homes further back and forward and that allows that each home the privacy of views that you’re trying to achieve especially you’re going down the hill.”
Again, this statement is an expression of Ms. Thomas’s opinion, and fails to recognize that the front-yard setback is not compliant with the DRO. The setback here is 6.5-feet closer to the front property line than the surrounding homes. Staff’s report “Design Guideline C.1 B (should be C.1 D) recommends that in cases where setbacks along a street are varied in the neighborhood, new homes should match those of adjacent homes.” Ms. Thomas’s responsibility EXHIBIT C 87 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 200 April 4, 2022 Item 10 Ashley Jones
Leslie Devaney
February 10, 2022

as a member of the DRB is to support the Del Mar Community Plan and the DRO, not to selectively reinvent them to suit her own opinions.

At the end of meeting when it was obvious the Applications would be continued, the following dialogue occurred:

Ms. Thomas: “Glenn can I ask a question in terms of I kind of agree with the wall with a view to the east of the scale of the yard is larger so it’s a small percentage of it but because the landscaping has been such an issue for this project I don’t know how we are to look at it if there was a hedge that has basically no view because if the hedge the hedge went all the way along property line then that wall can we affect that wall living there by adding Landscaping there? And then Brian if you if you go back to the picture that you brought up on Page 55 that shows it below the street I kind of want clarification from those who think it’s looming to explain so that I can better understand I mean it’s sitting below the street and reads is not a two-story house so I’m having a hard time understanding concern so I’d love a little bit of clarification from my point of you thank you”
Glenn Warren, DRB Member: “I guess I it’s just my perception when I look at it. And I understand what you’re saying it’s not the stories coming directly up on the street, but because of where it situated I get a sort of a pause in feeling which I don’t get it with some of the other two-story houses that I see on the block with their situated for the back. That’s just a feeling our perception that I have I think it’s location, the siting.” Not satisfied with Mr. Warren’s response, Ms. Thomas then redirects the conversation: “I don’t know maybe it’s a question for you or for Matt. Landscaping because if you see your EXHIBIT C 88 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 201 April 4, 2022 Item 10 Ashley Jones
Leslie Devaney
February 10, 2022

hedge goes all along that edge of the property line, essentially this entire house disappears is that a viable option in terms of our what we can do on DRB? . . . The hedge which provides privacy between all the lots if you look around the streets and if you look around a lot of these lots have very tall landscaping on the property line just this one but it essentially ends with this house is going to start extend to in front of his house on the east property line will keep this house from being huge from something or other property because that Hedge more continue down that way. Is that something we can consider on the DRB as well keeping screening that takes that looming away.”
Matt Bator: “So oftentimes applicants will propose that vegetation could mitigate issues caused by structural siding by creating screening of buildings and things like that. My suggestion is typically well that can be used … that’s fine mechanism that’s been used by boards in the past. Often times boards will take the other route that would be to since structures are last for a really long time look at mitigation through design versus vegetation, which could be temporary in nature over. Time for permanent screening.

Ms. Thomas: “I just thought because the landscaping was such an issue here kind of pertinent but thank you for that answer”
Beth Levin, DRB Member: “I would add that I was just looking at the landscaping plan that string of your Eugenia bushes or trees goes along maybe a third of the way along that Eastern property line. It doesn’t go all the way along.” Ms. Thomas: “Right and so what I’m saying that the effectiveness of his project or whatever the final iteration is it would be helpful for a hedge of some sort whether continue along that entire property line to provide privacy between the two lots would be my suggestion.’ Ms. Thomas was actually pushing for the Eugenia hedge, which currently blocks my clients’ ocean view from their primary living area, to be extended the full length of the property line. In her opinion, a longer hedge should eliminate my clients’ concerns about looming 2- story, bulk and mass, loss of privacy, etc. Not only does Ms. Thomas demonstrate a complete disregard for the DRO, she also demonstrates that she is prepared to eliminate my clients’ ocean view with a solid wall in order to advance her own personal agenda.

When Ms. Thomas became a member of the DRB she accepted the responsibility to uphold the important design principles reflected in the Community Plan and the DRO. Ms.

Thomas’s statements in her meeting with my clients, and during the December 15 hearing, demonstrate that she is not evaluating projects based on the existing DRO. With respect to the Applications, she was not evaluating them based on the existing DRO, but on her own personal opinions.

EXHIBIT C 89 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 202 April 4, 2022 Item 10 Ashley Jones
Leslie Devaney
February 10, 2022

For all of the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that Ms. Thomas is biased, is not fit to participate in any future consideration of the Applications by the DRB, and should be disqualified from doing so.

Very truly yours,
/s/ Richard R. Rice
Richard R. Rice
cc: Clients
EXHIBIT C 90 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 203 April 4, 2022 Item 10

GENERAL CONDITIONS
G-1 [Business License]
Prior to commencement of any work on site, all contractors and subcontractors shall obtain a valid City of Del Mar Business License. The general contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that all subcontractors obtain required Business License and shall retain copies of said permits on site for verification by City staff.

G-2 [Utility Undergrounding Threshold]
If the total cost of new construction exceeds $7,500 (as determined by the Building Department), all new utility service connections shall be placed underground consistent with the provisions of DMMC Section 30.86.210.

G-3 [Development Authorization Limited to Plan Set]
This permit is granted based on submitted plans dated February 2, 2022 and so identified by the staff of the Del Mar Planning and Community Development Department. Revisions to these plans and/or any proposals for modification shall require review and prior authorization from the appropriate entities of the City of Del Mar.

G-4 [Encroachment Permit for Work in Right-of-Way]
Any work proposed or required within a City of Del Mar public right-of-way or access easement, or required within a public right-of-way or access easements pursuant to the conditions of approval of this Permit, shall be subject to the prior receipt of a City of Del Mar Encroachment Permit.

Applications for Encroachment Permits shall include plans depicting all proposed private and public improvements including, but not limited to, improvements involving drainage, grading and/or public utilities. The required Encroachment Permit shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Del Mar in accordance with the procedures set forth in the DMMC and may include requirements for inspections and/or submittal of a security deposit(s). Please note that DRB of plans indicating right-of-way improvements does not constitute approval of the separately required Encroachment Permit.

G-5 [Requirement for Building Permits]
Prior to commencement of work, the applicant or agent shall obtain all required Building Permits.

G-6 [Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Requirement] Owners and builders generating any construction and demolition debris on a project must comply with the minimum requirements regarding recycling or reuse for salvage set forth in the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11. This includes, but is not limited to, the submittal of a Construction Waste Management Plan and a minimum diversion of 65% of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Signage shall be posted on-site with information identifying materials to be diverted.

G-8 [Height and Setback Certifications Prior to Framing Sign Off] Prior to sign-off on the framing inspection for the project, the applicant shall provide a statement from a Licensed Surveyor certifying that the building height and setbacks are in conformance with the approved plans for the project. The survey required herein shall be prepared using City of Del EXHIBIT D 91 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 204 April 4, 2022 Item 10 Mar approved vertical benchmarks for building height certification and reported to 0.01 of a foot.

The setback certification shall be based on surveyed property corners as necessary to establish property lines and reported to 0.01 of a foot.

G-9 [Fence/wall Height Limitations]
All fencing, walls, and gates shall conform with all applicable fence height and pool security fencing requirements of the DMMC.

G-10 [Story Pole Removal]
Story poles shall be removed from the property within ten days following the final date of the City’s action on the project application.

G-11 [Plan for Construction-Phase Impacts]
Prior to issuance of Building Permits or commencement of project implementation (whichever comes first), the Applicant shall provide a plan to the Planning Department for construction-phase parking and equipment/materials storage for the project. The plan must include the following:
a. Identification of an on-site material storage location; b. Identification of an on-site equipment storage location; c. Identification of at least two on-site parking space which will remain available throughout the duration of the project;
d. Location of any temporary sanitary facilities;
e. A note stating that “If on-street parking is utilized, a minimum street access clearance of 20ft. will be maintained”;
f. Map displaying any/all haul routes; and
g. Contact information (phone number and Email) for the on-site supervisor(s);

1. This information must also be posted on-site in a location which is readily visible from the public right-of-way for the duration of the project.

The plan required herein shall be subject to the review and written approval of the Planning and Community Development Director, working in consultation with Community Services/Parking Enforcement and Public Works Departments. Haul routes and work and/or storage of material or equipment within a City right-of-way will require the receipt of an Encroachment Permit. The requirements mentioned above may be modified by the Planning and Community Development Director, or his designee, upon a determination that sufficient alternatives have been proposed which achieve a similar level of compliance.

G-11A In addition to the submittal of a Construction Phase Impact Plan, the applicant must place a Construction Parking Placard in all vehicles associated with the project which will be parked off-site. The placard must remain in plain view on the dashboard of the vehicle throughout the duration of the project. A Construction Parking Placard can be obtained from the City of Del Mar Planning Department.

EXHIBIT D 92 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 205 April 4, 2022 Item 10 G-12 [Receipt of Demolition Permit]
Prior to the demolition or removal of any structures on the project site, the applicant shall apply for and gain approval for: a Demolition Permit, as required pursuant to the DMMC; and an accompanying Coastal Development Permit, as applicable.

G-13 [Permit Expiration]
This Permit shall expire three years from the date of approval, on February 23, 2025 unless a Building Permit has been issued (if required by the DMMC) and substantial construction has been accomplished in reliance upon the permit. Pursuant to the DMMC, substantial construction is defined as: completion of a minimum of 10% of the total amount of construction authorized by the permit, based on the monetary value of construction costs including grading, site preparation and construction but specifically excluding all costs associated with the acquisition of interest in the project site and all costs associated with the preparation and processing of permits or plans.

G-14 [Preconstruction Meeting]
Prior to any demolition, construction, and/or land disturbances occurring on-site, a preconstruction meeting shall be held. Attendees to this meeting shall include representatives from the City of Del Mar’s Planning and Community Development Department, City Engineer, the Project Contractor/Superintendent, the Project Architect, the Project Engineer, the property owner and any others essential for the proper implementation and completion of this project. At a minimum, the following issues shall be reviewed at this meeting:
a. City of Del Mar inspection requirements.
b. Process for requests for plan modification and determinations of substantial conformance.
c. Discretionary permit conditions and requirements.
d. Construction hour limitations and noise standards.
e. Construction access and parking including equipment/materials storage and maintenance.
f. Work within public rights-of-way and/or easements.
g. Stormwater Best Management Practices.
h. Tree-preservation requirements.
i. Demolition permit requirements.
j. Signage requirements/limitations.
k. Neighborhood impact issues.
l. Key contact information.
m. Business license requirements.
n. Construction and demolition waste diversion requirements o. Any other pertinent construction related activities and or information.

G-15 [Statement of Accuracy/Agreement Regarding Third-Party Lawsuits] Prior to the issuance of building permits or project commencement, whichever comes first, the applicant shall submit a statement to the Planning Department regarding the accuracy of submitted plans/materials and agreeing to hold the City of Del Mar harmless from third-party lawsuits filed challenging the City’s approval of this permit. The agreement shall also include a commitment to defend the City of Del Mar from any third-party lawsuits filed challenging the City’s approval of this EXHIBIT D 93 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 206 April 4, 2022 Item 10 permit. The form and content of the statement and agreement required herein shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning and Community Development Director, or his designee G-16 [Compliance with City Noise Regulations]
The applicant and all parties involved with implementation of the project shall comply with the regulations of the DMMC with regard to construction noise. The regulations stipulate that all construction activities are limited to the following periods: between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. / Monday through Friday and between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction activities are prohibited during other hours and on Sundays and City Holidays. The City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.20 of the Del Mar Municipal Code, includes the dates of City Holidays, and can be viewed on the City’s web page (www.delmar.ca.us).

G-17 [Dig Alert]
Prior to excavation or trenching, the applicant shall call Underground Service Alert of Southern California (Dig Alert- 1-800-227-2600) for a mark out of service utilities.

G-18 [Rules for Construction-related Signage]
All construction-related signage posted at the project site shall comply with DMMC Chapter 30.84 (Signs). The pertinent sections of the Sign Chapter allow installation of a total 5.5 square feet of temporary signage on a residential property (that is cumulative of all signs posted). Such signs may be posted for a maximum of sixty (60) days in a calendar year.

The restrictions noted above do not apply to the Development Pending, Construction Noise Notice and Building Permit signs required by the City as part of the project review process.

All construction related signage, including City required signs, shall be removed prior to final approval of the project.

ENGINEERING CONDITIONS:

E-1 [Separate Permits for Off-site Work]
All improvements to off-site facilities, including conditions of this Permit, shall be subject to the receipt of separate City permits, as applicable.

E-2 [Engineering Fee]
Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall provide fees as delineated in the City’s Engineering Review Fee Schedule as funds necessary for Engineering Department review of the proposed site improvements. If additional review beyond the scope outlined in the Engineering Review Fee Schedule becomes necessary, a supplemental deposit(s) will be required.

E-3 [Installation of Public Improvements- Covenant therefore] E-3A The applicant shall perform street repairs on the full width of 8th Street adjacent to the property. 8th Street shall have dig-out performed on any distressed pavement and shall receive a 1-1/2” grind and overlay full width adjacent to property, as depicted on the Preliminary Grading Plan, which shall include all transitions, EXHIBIT D 94 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 207 April 4, 2022 Item 10 drainage facilities, and other improvements as deemed necessary by the City Engineer. Said improvements shall be subject to inspection and approval by the City Engineer. A separate cost estimate is required for the work within the public right-of-way. Additional review fees will be required based on the City’s standard fee schedule for public improvements;
E-3B Construct Modified San Diego Regional Standard Drawing G-14 type drive apron to the property;
E-3C A separate cost estimate is required for the work within the public right-of-way.

Additional review fees will be required based on the City’s standard fee schedule for public improvements; and
E-3D Raise all manholes and utility valves to grade after 1-1/2” grind and overlay.

E-4 [Private Drains]
Unless specifically authorized in permit plans, drains in landscape areas discharging to public rights-of-way shall not be allowed. Drains discharging into public rights-of-way may be authorized, subject to review by the City Engineer and only if warranted by unique site conditions. In such cases, design elements shall be incorporated into the plans which reduce the potential for stormwater pollution and nuisance drainage to the maximum extent practicable. The project engineer’s evaluation shall include, but not be limited to, consideration of the potential effect of proposed construction on site groundwater and moisture conditions. All hardscape drains, roof drains, wall drains, and other private drains shall be shown in detail on improvement plans. Site drainage shall be designed such that, in the event of plugged or overloaded inlets/outlets, storm flows will be conveyed in a manner that is not detrimental (including flooding and erosion) to the site or other properties.

E-5 [Grading Plan]
Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall obtain a Grading Permit from the City. A Grading Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of City’s “Applicant’s Guide to Procedures for a Grading Permit.” The Grading Plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall:

E-5A The grading for the project shall be performed under the observation of a Registered Civil Engineer whose responsibility shall be to coordinate site inspection and testing to ensure compliance with the approved Grading Plan. The project Engineer shall submit reports to the City Engineer to verify compliance, as deemed necessary.

E-5B A topographic map shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer or a Licensed Land Surveyor. The topographic map shall indicate property lines, topographic features and existing and/or proposed structures. Said map shall include two-foot contour lines and/or sufficient spot elevations to clearly represent existing and proposed topographical features, and existing and proposed drainage patterns.

Survey shall extend minimum 25 feet beyond limits of work. Said map shall also EXHIBIT D 95 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 208 April 4, 2022 Item 10 show entire property boundary including any assumed found monuments, and bearings and distances based on record information;
E-5C Depict the location of property lines and topographic features of the site that adequately address how private storm water is to be collected, conveyed, and discharged on or across the subject site with respect to the proposed project; E-5D Include a grading cost estimate for review, based on the City of San Diego’s Unit Price List;
E-5E Include provisions to collect, convey, and discharge storm water in an appropriate manner, considering the added impact of impervious surface area to the site; E-5F Include provisions to ensure that storm water will not be concentrated and discharged across adjacent properties;
E-5G Include a Hydrology/Hydraulic Report prepared by a Registered Engineer that addresses how storm water will be adequately collected and conveyed on and across the subject property. The Report shall also address the tributary area for run-off directed to and across the subject property. The Report shall include calculations and details demonstrating that if proposed inlets/outlets, etc. are plugged or overloaded, the site is capable of conveying storm flows in a manner that is not detrimental (including flooding and erosion) to surrounding properties.

The Report shall address both existing and proposed conditions. Calculations to include 2-year water quality event and 100-year storm event with mitigation for any increase in flows or change in drainage patterns;
E-5H Incorporate all recommendations pursuant to the Hydrology/Hydraulic Report prepared for the project. This includes the detailing in the plan set of any bio retention/infiltration or vegetated swales which are proposed. Mitigate for any increase in runoff generated by this development.

E-5I Include mitigation measures and project modifications as recommended in the required Geotechnical Report/investigation prepared for the project; E-5J Depict the location of erosion control devices to be implemented in the event of rainfall;
E-5K The methods for providing temporary erosion control during the construction phase of the project, complete with the inclusion of standard grading and erosion control notes on the plans;
E-5L Include methods to ensure retaining wall sub-drains and sump pumps will not discharge onto City streets, as they contribute to nuisance water. Sub-drains and sump pumps shall discharge on private property to allow percolation back into the soil;
EXHIBIT D 96 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 209 April 4, 2022 Item 10 E-5M Ensure existing or proposed private pipe outlets will not convey or discharge nuisance water (i.e., from irrigation, hardscape run-off, planter area drains, French drains, etc.) onto adjacent streets or into the public right-of-way. The applicant shall provide methods to eliminate the discharge of nuisance water; E-5N Ensure that the development will minimize the amount of impervious surface area and maximize the on-site dissipation of storm water run-off; E-5O Include storm drain run-off "Best Management Practices" that minimize the volumes of urban run-off discharge to City rights-of-way, as acceptable to the City Engineer. Indicate how the proposed bio-infiltration/retention area or bio-swale will discharge off-site without causing erosion;
E-5P Provide elevations and slope call-outs to clarify how water will drain around the proposed patio hardscape, with assurances the runoff will not be conveyed over sensitive topographic features;
E-5Q Include a five (5) foot wide buffer zone to be maintained along the edge of pavement along the street frontage. No obstructions (i.e., walls, trees, benches, etc.) shall be permitted within this area;
E-5R Include landscaping plans with characteristics that maximize infiltration, provide retention, reduce irrigation and storm water run-off, use efficient irrigation, and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; E-5S Ensure that the grading and other construction activities meet the provisions specified in the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), San Diego Region, Order R9-2013-0001, NPDES No. CAS0109266 – Section D.2 and subsequent orders;
E-5T Following construction completion, the project designer shall inspect as-built improvements. Significant discrepancies, if any, between the approved plans and as-built conditions shall be brought to the attention of the Planning and Community Development Department and City Engineer. An as-built plan prepared by the project designer will be required. Prior to final sign-off by the City Engineer, the project designer shall sign the as-built plan indicating that the project was completed in accordance with said plan; and E-5U Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall post a security in an amount approved by the City Engineer for the proposed grading. Said security shall be in a form acceptable to the City and shall remain in place until completion of the grading and final approval by the City. The amount shall be based on 25% of the approved grading cost estimate prepared as a part of the Grading Permit; E-6 [Geotechnical Report/investigation Requirement]
Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall provide a Geotechnical Report for the project. The Report shall be prepared, signed and sealed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and a Geotechnical Engineer or Registered Civil Engineer. This Report shall be EXHIBIT D 97 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 210 April 4, 2022 Item 10 subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, City Building Department, and if deemed necessary, a third-party with expertise in geotechnical issues. The report required herein shall:

E-6A Include all standard information as required by the City’s Grading Ordinance; E-6B Evaluate existing site constraints;
E-6C Evaluate potential effect of proposed construction on properties; E-6D Provide any mitigation measures as necessary;
E-6E Provide recommendations for any special construction methods as necessary; E-6F Include the preparation of field tests to be performed at the site during construction, so as to ensure that field conditions are suitable for the approved construction. The results of such tests may necessitate revisions to the project with such revisions subject to review by the appropriate City entities;
E6G Provide recommendations for back-cuts for the construction of retaining walls.

These recommendations shall include a time limit that the back-cuts can remain in place without either creating a stable backfill, or completing construction of the approved retaining walls. If the recommended time deadlines are not met, the applicant, by signing these conditions, grants the City permission to work on their private property to secure the back-cuts, and use the cash security to perform the work; and
E-6H Temporary shoring will be required for this project and the geotechnical consultant shall provide necessary geotechnical parameters and recommendations, including maximum cuts and time limits for shoring.

E-7 [Authorization for Off-site Work]
E-7A Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall obtain letters of permission from affected property owners if construction or construction access is required across property lines. This includes the grading as depicted in the preliminary grading plan and the construction of retaining wall along property lines; and
E-7B The following note shall be included on the plans for the Permit: “No grading shall occur outside the limits of the approved grading plan unless prior written authorization is obtained from the City and the owners of any other affected properties.”
E-8 [Grading – Separate Permits for Borrow or Disposal Site] A separate Grading Plan shall be submitted and approved and a separate Grading Permit issued for any off-site borrow or disposal site, if located within City limits. An Encroachment Permit will be required to identify the haul route proposed for this purpose.

EXHIBIT D 98 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 211 April 4, 2022 Item 10 If the borrow or disposal site is located outside of the City, the applicant shall provide evidence of receipt of required permits/authorizations.

E-9 [Standard Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SWMP)]
Prior to issuance of Development Permits, the applicant shall submit a Standard SWMP for City review and approval that addresses the following:

E-9A Control the post-development peak storm water run-off discharge rates and velocities to maintain or reduce pre-development downstream erosion; E-9B Minimize pollutants of concern from urban runoff through implementation of source control BMPs;
E-9C Remove pollutants of concern from urban runoff through implementation of structural BMPs;
E-9D Protect slopes and channels from eroding;
E-9E Comply with the City Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP); E-9F Identify affected receiving water bodies; and
E-9G Include an exhibit that clearly shows the limits and quantities of impervious area in both the pre and post development conditions.

The structural BMPs required herein shall be designed so as to filter or treat the volume or flow outlined in the numeric sizing criteria outlined below:

Volume
Volume-based BMPs shall be designed to filter or treat the volume of runoff produced from a 24-hour 85th percentile storm event, as determined from the local historical rainfall record; E-10 [BMP details]
Prior to issuance of Development Permits, all post construction BMPs shall be shown in detail on the construction plans and submitted to the City for review and approval. For all post-construction treatment control BMPs, submit an operation and maintenance manual detailing requirements for the property owner to maintain BMPs into perpetuity. An easement shall be granted to the City for inspection of post-construction treatment control BMPs as needed. The project shall comply with the existing and subsequent Del Mar Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Plan and the State of California and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

E-11 [Soil Stabilization]
EXHIBIT D 99 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 212 April 4, 2022 Item 10 The applicant shall utilize sediment controls only as a supplement to erosion prevention for keeping sediment on-site during construction – NEVER as a single or primary method.

E-11A The applicant shall clear and grade only the areas on the project site that are necessary for construction. These areas shall be clearly denoted on the plans; E-11B The applicant shall minimize exposure time of disturbed soil areas; E-11C The applicant shall submit a schedule to the City for review and approval, with proposed dates, demonstrating the minimization of grading during the wet season and coinciding the grading with dry weather periods, permanent revegetation and landscaping as early as feasible, temporary stabilization and reseeding of disturbed soil areas as early as feasible; and
E-11D The applicant shall stabilize all slopes per City approved method.

E-12 [Access to Water Meters]
Access to proposed or existing water meters located on or immediately adjacent to the property shall remain open and unobstructed at all times. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that no structure or vegetation is proposed so as to restrict access to the water meter. In the event access is blocked by project implementation, the applicant shall be responsible for the removal any obstruction at his/her expense or shall pay for the cost of relocating the water meter to allocation acceptable to the Public Works Department.

E-13 [Updated Title Report]
Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall prepare an updated title report for the property.

E-14 [Compliance with City of Del Mar JURMP]
This project shall conform to the construction component in the latest edition of the City's Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP).

E-15 [Design of inlets/outlets]
Site drainage shall be designed such that, in the event of plugged or overloaded inlets/outlets, storm flows will be conveyed in a manner that is not detrimental to the site or other properties.

E-16 [Sewer Service]
The sewer connection to the public main must be a gravity connection. If a pump is required in order to service the residence, it must transition to gravity flow prior to connection to the public system. A sewer backflow prevention device will also be required if a pump is proposed. The existing Sewer lateral shall be videoed and certified clear of obstructions or damage by a licensed plumber. Should the lateral be damaged, a new lateral shall be installed to service the residence.

E-17 [Proposed Retaining Wall]
EXHIBIT D 100 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 213 April 4, 2022 Item 10 The proposed retaining walls shall be designed and constructed completely within the property. No portion of the wall or footing shall extend across the property line. The footing limits of retaining walls shall be shown on the plans together with profiles of the proposed retaining walls located along property lines and right-of-ways.

E-18 [Public Improvements]
The public street improvements can be included within the Grading Plan. A separate cost estimate is required for the work within the public right-of-way, for fee generation purposes. Additional review fees will be required based on the City’s standard fee schedule for public improvements.

E-19 [Driveway Slope]
The Grading Plan must include a profile of the proposed driveway. The longitudinal slope must not exceed 8% within 10’ of the street. The slope must not exceed 6% within 25’ of the garage door. Between these two areas, the slope must not exceed 25%.

E-20 [Material Hauling and Construction Worker Parking] For material delivery vehicles equal to, or larger than two-axle, six-tire single unit truck (SU) size or larger as defined by FHWA Standards, the applicant shall submit a truck hauling route that conforms to City of Del Mar Municipal Code or to the approval of the City Engineer. A letter from the applicant confirming the intention to use this hauling route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and the City Engineering Department, and approved, prior to the issuance of any City permits. All material hauling activities including but not limited to, adherence to the approved route, hours of operation, staging of materials, dust control and street maintenance shall be the responsibility of the applicant. All storage and office trailers will be kept off the public right-of-way. Tracking of dirt onto City streets and walks will not be allowed. The applicant must provide an approved method of cleaning tires and trimming loads on-site. Any job-related dirt and/or debris that impacts the public right-of-way shall be removed immediately. No wash down of dirt into storm drains will be allowed. All material hauling activities shall be done in accordance with applicable City ordinances and conditions of approval. Violation of such may be cause for suspension of work.

The applicant shall provide a construction-parking plan that minimizes the effect of construction worker parking in the neighborhood and shall include an estimate of the number of workers that will be present on the site during the various phases of construction and indicate where sufficient off-street parking will be utilized and identify any locations for off-site material deliveries. Said plan shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and the City Engineer prior to issuance of City permits and shall be enforced during construction. Failure to enforce the parking plan may result in suspension of the City permits.

E-21 [Site conditions]
EXHIBIT D 101 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 214 April 4, 2022 Item 10 E-21A The applicant shall restrict hours of work for the use of heavy equipment during grading and improvements between the hours of 7:30AM to 5:00PM, this includes the warmup of equipment. Saturday, Sunday and City holiday work is prohibited; E-21B Any under grounding of SDG&E facilities serving the site or other utilities shall be done at the applicant’s expense; and
E-21C All construction activities undertaken shall comply with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. In cases of conflict between the City’s Municipal Code, these standard conditions of approval, the governing priority shall be, to the extent legally permitted, as follows: 1) City’s Municipal Code regulations; 2) City’s General Plan; 3) Standard Conditions.

FIRE CONDITIONS:

F-1 [Class A Roof]
All structures shall be provided with a Class “A” Roof covering to the satisfaction of the California Building and Fire Code. NO wood shake shingles are allowed.

F-2 [Access Road Minimum Dimensions]
Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed improved width of not less than 20 feet; curb line to curb line, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Exception: Single-Family residential driveways; serving no more than four single-family dwellings, shall have minimum of 16 feet, curb line to curb line, of unobstructed improved width. Access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of not less than 75,000 pounds.

F-7 [Gates]
All drive gates, pedestrian gates or other structures or devices, which could obstruct fire access roadways or otherwise hinder emergency operations or personnel, are prohibited unless they meet standards approved by the Del Mar Municipal Code 10.04 and California Fire Code. Gates across fire access roadways shall be automatic and equipped with approved emergency key operated switches overriding all command functions and opens the gate(s). Power supply shall be connected to a reliable municipal source. Gates accessing four (4) or more residences or residential lots, or gates accessing hazardous, institutional, and educational or assembly occupancy group structures, shall also be equipped with approved emergency traffic control activating strobe sensor(s), which will activate the gate on the approach of emergency apparatus with a battery back-up or manual mechanical disconnect in case of power failure. Pedestrian gates shall have a Knox Key Box installed and a key provided for any locked gate. Knox Box mounting height shall be 60 to 70 inches above finished grade maximum. Knox key switch mounting heights for drive gates shall not exceed 42 to 60 inches above finished grade.

F-9 [Construction Materials]
EXHIBIT D 102 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 215 April 4, 2022 Item 10 Prior to delivery of combustible building construction materials to the project site all of the following conditions shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Fire Department:

1. All wet and dry utilities shall be installed and approved by the appropriate inspecting department or agency;

2. As a minimum the first lift of asphalt paving shall be in place to provide a permanent all weather surface for emergency vehicles; and

3. All fire hydrants shall be installed, in service and accepted by the Fire Department and applicable water district.

F-12 [Automatic Fire Sprinkler System-Commercial, Multi-Family And Residential Structures And Garages; Fire Department Connections For Multi-Family And Commercial Sprinkler Systems And Related Control Valves] All structures shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system designed and installed to the satisfaction of the California Fire Code and Del Mar Municipal Code 10.04.

Plans for the automatic fire sprinkler system shall be submitted prior to start of construction and approved by the City designated fire plans examiner prior to any on site building construction inspection (other than slab, grading inspection) by a building official.

Fire Department Connections (FDC) for fire sprinkler and standpipe systems shall meet the following requirements: shall be mounted at the following height(s); 36 to 42 inches above finished grade, to the top of connection.
 If FDC is installed separate from the Backflow/Double Detector Check, it shall be located a minimum of 5 feet from the Backflow/DDC valve.  When an FDC is attached to Backflow/DDC, the FDC mounting height shall still be 36 to 42 inches max above finished grade
 If the Backflow/DDC is installed without an FDC, both OS&Y valve handles shall be mounted 36 to 42 inches above finished grade.
 Bushes, trees and similar foliage shall not be located within a radius of 5 feet of an FDC or Backflow/DDC valve assembly. Ground cover landscape is acceptable.” F-13 [Smoke and CO Detection]
Hard-wired Smoke detectors shall be installed in new construction when valuation of project exceeds $1000.00, as required by California Building or Fire Codes.

F-17 [Basement]
All basements shall be designed and equipped with emergency exit systems consisting of operable windows and lightwells. All lightwells if serving as one or more exits from a basement shall be equipped with fixed metal ladders as part of the exit. Lightwells that intrude into sideyard or backyard setbacks of five feet or less shall require a hinged grating covering the lightwell opening. The grating shall be capable of supporting a weight of 250 pound person; yet able to be opened by someone of minimal strength with no special knowledge, effort or key or tool. Any modification of previously approved plans related to this condition (F-17) shall be subject to re-submittal and review by appropriate City of Del Mar staff (Fire, Planning and Building).

EXHIBIT D 103 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 216 April 4, 2022 Item 10 F-19 [Fuel Modification Zones/Fire Breaks]
The applicant shall provide and maintain fire/fuel breaks to the satisfaction of the Del Mar Fire Department and California Fire Code. The size of fire/fuel breaks and composition shall be determined by the Fire Department and shown on the improvement /grading plans and final map and building plans.

F-20 [Fire Resistive Construction Requirements for Wildland/Urban Interface Areas] Structures shall meet all wildland/urban interface standards to the satisfaction of the California Fire Code. As a minimum, structures shall meet the following fire resistive construction requirements: (1) Exterior wall surfacing materials shall be of noncombustible materials; (2) Glazing materials shall be tempered multi-paned glass panels; (3) Skylights within one-half mile of the wildland area shall be tempered glass; (4) Ventilation in exterior fire resistive walls, they shall be constructed to maintain the fire resistive integrity of the wall; (5) Roof covering shall not be less than a Class “A” roof assembly; (6) Vinyl windows, if used, shall meet the following requirements: (a) Frame and sash are comprised of vinyl material with welded corners; (b) Metal sash profiles are certified in AAMA Lineal Certification Program (verified with either an AAMA product label or Certified Products Directory); and (e) Certified and labeled to ANSI/AAMA/NWWDA 101/I>S>2-97 for structural requirements; and (7) Structures shall have an automatic fire sprinkler system installed as required by Del Mar Municipal Code 10.04, California Fire Code and California Residential Code. (8) Landscape plans are required for all new and remodel dwellings located within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (WUI) areas. All proposed vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground cover) shall be fire resistive plant material. All vegetation shall comply with San Diego County Guidelines “ACCEPTABLE PLANTS FOR DEFENSIBLE SPACE IN FIRE PRONE AREAS”.

F-21 [Solar Photovoltaic Installations - Solar Panels]
Solar Photovoltaic Systems shall be installed per California State Fire Marshal installation guidelines. City of Del Mar designated Fire Plans Examiner will conduct plan reviews and inspections for all Solar Photovoltaic Systems on commercial buildings.

WATER CONSERVATION CONDITIONS
WC-01 [Compliance with City and State Water Conservation Policies and Regulations] Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a Landscape Documentation Package (LDP) for the project prepared by a landscape architect or landscape contractor licensed by the State of California. The LDP required herein shall include anticipated water use calculations for the project's landscape and irrigation components. The LDP shall be accompanied by a certification from the preparer that the LDP is in compliance with the City's adopted water conservation policies in effect at the time of LDP preparation, including Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 23.60 (Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance) and any guidelines adopted by the City for such ordinance. The preparer shall also certify that the LDP is in compliance with the Governor's Executive Order Nos. B-29-15 and B-36-15, which call for compliance with landscape/irrigation water use standards set by the California Building Standards Commission and the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

EXHIBIT D 104 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 217 April 4, 2022 Item 10 The LDP shall be subject to the review and written approval of the Director of Planning and Community Development (Director). The Director shall, as deemed necessary, work in consultation with the City's Landscape Architect, with the costs for such consultation to be borne by the applicant or his/her designee. If the submitted LDP is found not to be in compliance with the standards referenced herein, it shall be revised accordingly and resubmitted for compliance review.

In the event that compliance with this condition results in the need to modify a landscape or irrigation plan approved as part of a discretionary permit granted by the City, the Director shall have discretion to authorize changes of landscape materials in a manner that retains like-for-like consistency with the parameters of the project's approved discretionary permit, with such parameters to include: the size of landscape material to be installed and its anticipated mature height; and the location of any trees to be installed.

WC-02 [City Inspection for Compliance with Project's Landscape Documentation Package] Prior to final sign-off on implementation, the project shall be subject to inspection by City staff for compliance with the Landscape Documentation Package (LDP) required pursuant to the project's conditions of approval. The inspections shall include review for compliance with the irrigation and landscape plans included as component parts of the LDP.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS:

S-12 [Lighting Plan]
Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall provide a Lighting Plan for the project identifying all exterior lighting fixtures proposed for installation on or around the structures authorized in this Permit. The Plan required herein shall be subject to the review and written approval of the Planning and Community Development Director and shall be reviewed to ensure that the lighting will be of a low-level intensity and that the fixtures will be installed so that the source of light will not be directed to or visible from adjacent properties or adjacent rights-of-way.

In the event that the applicant disagrees with the Planning and Community Development Director’s determination on the acceptability of the Lighting Plan, the applicant shall have the opportunity to present the Plan to the Design Review Board for approval at a noticed public hearing.

S-14 [Pool Fencing]
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a plan for pool security fencing. Any installation of walls or fences required to provide such security fencing shall be subject to the prior receipt of all required permits.

EXHIBIT D 105 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 218 April 4, 2022 Item 10 1 of 8
February 18, 2021
Regarding DRB21-018
Dear Planning Department & Members of the DRB,
My husband Nigel Hook and I have lived at 635 Hoska Drive since 1999. People want to live in Del Mar.

Nigel and I support the Del Mar Design Review Ordinances, the foundation upholding Del Mar’s character and charm.

We are in an R1-10 neighborhood with 25% FAR. This project is on a sub-standard lot (in this case 7,015 sq. ft.), but is allowed to contain a 2,000 sq. ft. home… so an additional 246 sq. ft. on a lot which is 70% of the minimum zoning size.

There have been some adjustments to the project (entrance has changed and the deck is reduced to 568 sq. ft.) but these relatively minor changes do not address the majority of the concerns and Staff’s December report was succinct:
“These features cumulatively result in a new two-story structure which is potentially in conflict with DRO 23.08.077 C, in that the new house could have the appearance of being to be out of scale with other houses in the immediate neighborhood. Surrounding development within 300’ of the subject property, on the north side of 8th Street (houses on the south side of 8th Street are in the City of San Diego), is primarily one-story or where two-stories occur, they are setback significantly on the lot.”
The proportions of our neighborhood should be considered and incorporated into any design for a [small] house on an even smaller lot. However, that is not what is happening. The building pad is being raised 18” and the majority of the vertical structural massing is off center, forward in the southeast corner of the property. Because of the oversized deck, the western side yard setback is 15+’ (instead of 7.5’) so the building is narrower than it could be which further emphasizes the massing and out of scale appearance. This 2-story building would be positioned very close to the minimum front setback (6’ 6” closer to the street than the average single story structures in the vicinity).

We support new development and our neighborhood is ready for homes to be refreshed. We like the modern look and general style of the proposed house and believe this style can be equally effective as a 1-story home.

The underlying problem is simple … this project is not “neighborhood aware”.

DMMC 23.08.077 D. 2. The design is not harmonious with or is functionally incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood in respect to structural siting;
Staff’s December report: “Design Guideline C.1 B. recommends that in cases where setbacks along a street front are varied in the neighborhood, new homes should match those of adjacent homes.” The average setback is 27’8” (and that is for single story structures). This development places a 2-story building 6’ 6” closer than the rest of the neighboring 1-story homes. Note: other than our garage which is not visible, there isn’t another 2-story structure located anywhere close a front yard setback.

The planned building height is 24’ 2”.

December Staff’s report: “The proposed residence would be sited upon a raised building pad approximately 1- 2’ 8” feet above existing grade” which calculates to the new top of the building will be 26’ above the current grade?
The existing home’s height is probably around 11’ (as compared to 612 8th Street) This means that 15’ of a solid building and wall is being proposed on top of what is already on the lot? Attachment E 219 April 4, 2022 Item 10
2 of 8
It was not correct for Staff to include the proposed setback and the proposed building height as part of the existing neighborhood’s averages.

The current home is a single story and is comparable in dimensions with 612 8th St. so using that in the average calculation our neighborhood is closer to 16.4’ (2 feet lower).

Making the proposed house 7.5+ feet taller than the surrounding homes (not 5.5’).

This 2-story will be 14 feet taller than the existing one-story and will loom over 8th Street and loom over our yard.

Note: Staff’s report also used the proposed front yard setback (instead of the home’s current front yard setback) for the average setback. And it is noteworthy that all of the buildings at the setbacks are single story homes or a single story garages that transition into a 2-story behind it.

Attachment E 220 April 4, 2022 Item 10
3 of 8
DMMC 23.08.072 J. The proposed development locates structures so as to unreasonably, adversely impact upon outdoor areas on adjacent properties;
DMMC 23.08.072 D The design will create an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of neighboring properties.

DMMC 23.08.077 H The proposed development would adversely affect the noise quality of the local neighborhood.

DMMC 23.08.078 E The proposed development fails to limit the amount of design components which unnecessarily add bulk and mass to the building but which are not calculated as floor area ratio pursuant to DMMC title 30.

DMMC 23.08.077 D. 2. The design is not harmonious with or is functionally incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood in respect to structural siting;
The still very large deck (568 sq. ft.) and it’s covered outdoor room (300 sq. ft.) will be intrusive for neighbors to the west. While the current neighbors may not outright object, all future residents would be subjected to this design which the majority of Del Mar residences would not favor. Decisions made now affect the future enjoyment of the neighborhood.

That non-FAR is certain to encourage large outdoor parties (23.08.072 J) and creates bulk and mass (23.08.078E).

From our backyard and our entertainment areas, a 2-story will suddenly be at eye-level (23.08.072 J). This not only creates a privacy issue, no one wants to look at a wall blocking the ocean view and sky (23.08.077 D. 2.) From anywhere in our yard, we see only top of the single story homes. There is light and air all around. There are ocean views over and around the existing roofs.

Even with foliage and hedges, we are ocean aware.

DMMC 23.08.027 E. The design will cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value.

Reasonable people would agree that a 2-story will significantly depreciate our property value (and would also depreciate the property value at 641 Hoska Dr., our neighbor to the east).

Attachment E 221 April 4, 2022 Item 10
4 of 8
This picture is worth 1,000 words and it is not an exaggeration – the Story Poles are seen and circled in Red.

Any reasonable person would have major concerns about this story suddenly popping up at the same level as our yard and outdoor entertainment areas.

Attachment E 222 April 4, 2022 Item 10
5 of 8
DMMC Section 23.08.077 C – Neighborhood scale – Out of scale with the neighboring homes Related Design Guidelines:
• Design Guideline C.1 B. – Neighborhood Compatibility
• Design Guideline D.1 – Building Form and Massing
• Design Guideline D.4 C.- Architectural Features and Articulation Design Guidelines *** Lot Coverage ***
The current 1-story home has a lot coverage of 28.78%.

The proposed 2-story has lot coverage of 28.51%.

The footprint is not being reduced making the 2nd story (696 sq. ft. and the 568 sq. ft. deck) bulk and mass being added to this lot and into our neighborhood. *** Non-FAR ***
The current 1-story home has very little existing non-FAR (just a covered entrance?).

The proposed design creates 1,057 sq. ft. of non-FAR (a huge increase) and majority is a direct result of the oversized deck and covered patio. The covered patio is basically another room for this house. This is weighty increase of non-FAR creates unnecessary bulk and mass on a lot and structure which is currently suitably balanced to the neighborhood.
*** 1-Story Neighborhood ***
This is a 1-story neighborhood. Within 300 feet of 624 8th Street there are 19 structures and of these, 3 are twostory which is 15.79%. Conversely, 84% within 300 feet are 1-story homes. The breakdown:
• Sixteen are 1-story homes (note: two do have popup elements) (add five more counting San Diego). • Two are 2-story homes fronted by single story garages (see A and B blue circles). As noted in Staff’s report, the 2nd stories are well back from the street (50’ and 57’) therefore the 2nd story isn’t looming.
• One is a 2-story Garage/Guest House (see C blue circle). From the road, the garage appears to be a single story. Staff has already stated in their December report, that the Garage/Guest House is “significantly smaller than the proposed residence at 624 8th Street” (it is half the size 1,071 vs 2,000) and that it is “not currently visible due to the mature dense vegetation” (finally since the building is embedded into a sandstone bluff on street sides, vegetation is not required to shield the structure from view).

Attachment E 223 April 4, 2022 Item 10
6 of 8
The green circle is 300’ from 624 8th Street (pink square). San Diego is the dark square outlined in red.

The green lines show the start of 1-story for the 2-story homes and the red lines show where the 2-story is visible.

Attachment E 224 April 4, 2022 Item 10
7 of
8 DMMC 23.08.077 C. Out of ScaleDMMC 23.08.077 D. The design is not harmoniousDriving down 8th St., back up 9th St., turning on Hoska Dr., and then around the 8th St. extension…There are 50 homes in this picture (the 19 within 300 feet plus 31 more homes). Of these 50:
37 are 1- story (74%) 13 are 2-story (26%)
Clearly this is a one-story neighborhood. In front of every 2-story is a 1-story transition structure softening the effect of a 2-story. Finally, with the exception of our garage, all of the 2-story homes have the 2nd story positioned at least 40’back from the road.

This is confirmed on page 6 of Staffs December report: “8th Street is primary one-story or where two-stories occur, they are setback significantly on the lot”.

Attachment E 225 April 4, 2022 Item 10
8 of 8

23.08.077 H The proposed development unreasonable encroaches upon primary scenic views of neighboring property.

Building a 2-story would forever more block the ocean view from our primary living area.

Everyone is well aware of the unauthorized topping of the hedge. Hedges are one thing … a solid wall is completely different story.

This issue is a red herring. Do not be distracted from the major impact this design would have on Del Mar.

Thank you,
Nigel Hook and Janet Wilson
635 Hoska Drive
Nigel: (619) 977-3000
Janet: (619) 733-1428
Attachment E 226 April 4, 2022 Item 10
1050 Camino Del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014-2698.

Telephone: (858) 755-9313. www.delmar.ca.us
TO: Design Review Board
FROM: Jennifer Gavin, Associate Planner
DATE: February 23, 2022
RE: DRB21-018/ LC21-008/ CDP21-012 (624 8th Street, Ziskin) It was noted in the December 15, 2021 Staff report that all houses on the south side of 8th Street were in the City of San Diego. However, there are three houses on the south side of 8th Street, within the 300’ radius which are actually located in the City of Del Mar and were inadvertently left out of the analysis. Therefore, staff is providing an updated analysis, edits noted in red:

Address Stories Front Yard Setback Setback to
Second Story
Building
Height
417 8th Street Not Known,
appears onestory from
street
Not Known Not Known
425 8th Street Two 20’ Approximately
41’ 6”
23’ 1”
428 8th Street One 29’ 15’ 6”
431 8th Street Two 20’ Approximately
51’ 3”
24’
434 8th Street One 32’ 15’
442 8th Street Two 45’ Approximately
63’ 6”
22’
450 8th Street One Not Known Not Known
612 8th Street One 27’ 10’ 8”
624 8th Street
(as proposed)
Two 21’ 2” 24’ 2”
635 Hoska Drive
(Garage and
apartment off 8th
Street)*
Two Approximately
13’ 2”
13’ 2” (Nonconforming
structure)
Approximately
24’8”
Average One (When
looking at the
north side of
8 th Street)
Both one and
two story
homes when

27.8’ 25.9’ 18.6’ 19.9’
Attachment E 227 April 4, 2022 Item 10

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT: DRB21-018/ LC21-008/ CDP21-012 (624 8th Street) February 23, 2022
looking at full
300’ radius
*The residence at 635 Hoska Drive fronts Hoska Drive so was not included in this analysis. The structure on this property fronting 8th Street is a nonconforming (setback; 13’ where 20’ is required) 1,071 1,914 square-foot two story accessory structure including a garage with living space above that fronts 8 th Street. It should be noted, however, that this existing accessory structure is significantly 86 square feet smaller than the proposed residence at 624 8th Street, is non-conforming in setback, and is not currently visible due to mature dense vegetation along the corner of 8th Street where it turns to meet Hoska Drive.

One other correction to the analysis contained in the December 15, 2022 staff report is that it was stated in the report that the existing garage/accessory structure at 635 Hoska Drive was 1,071 square feet. However, upon reevaluation of public records this size does not include the existing 843 square foot living space above the garage. Therefore, the total size of the accessory structure is approximately 1,914 square feet. However, it is still the case that this is an existing nonconforming structure that would otherwise not be allowed to be located where it is under current zoning standards.

Of the three houses on the south side of 8th Street in Del Mar (417, 425, and 431 8th Street) staff was able to find records on two of the houses (425 and 431 8th Street). While these two houses do add to the number of two-story homes on 8th Street within 300’ of the subject property, it is staff’s observation that they still follow the general trend of setting the second-story level further back on the lot than the minimum setback zoning otherwise requires, which is consistent with the existing two-story home located on the north side of 8th street (442 8th Street).

Attachment E 228 April 4, 2022 Item 10
1 Jennifer Gavin
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 4:20 PM
To: Jennifer Gavin
Cc: Matt Bator; Nigel Hook; Richard Rice
Subject: DRB021-018 - Neighborhood averages statistics should be adjusted to match the neighborhood noticing.

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.

Hi Jennifer, Hi Matt,
Thank you for your time today. I know you're crazy busy on DRB day.

The homes being noticed within 300' are the homes that should be used for neighborhood averages.
(if 300' is extended down 8th Street, the extension should be considered for all directions within reasonable normal neighborhood walking.) The existing house at 624 8th St. must be included in with the current averages.

Our main structure must also be included in the averages (we front 8th St.). The garage is a separate structure and should still be included too.

Main is One story
Setback 100'
Height 26'? (? not sure of height but I know it is conforming and max is 26') In this neighborhood average spreadsheet the chart below includes #1-11.

My 300' was different from yours so I need to expand ... based on 417 8th St. now being included (within 300'),
it sure appears that structures #12-30 should be included too! I count 21 one-stories (75%)
7 two-stories (25%).

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PERCENTAGE WHICH SHOULD BE PRESENTED BY STAFF.

Will you be able to confirm mailings to 1 vs. 2 stories before tonight's meeting?
Address One-orTwo-Story Front Yard Setback Setback to 2nd Story Building Height 417 8th Street
Not known,
appears one-story
from street
Not known Not known
1 425 8th Street 2 20 41 23
2 428 8th Street 1 29 16
3 431 8th Street 2 20 51 24
4 434 8th Street 1 32 15
5 442 8th Street 2 45 63 22
6 450 8th Street 1 Not Known Not Known
7 612 8th Street 1 27 11
Attachment E 229 April 4, 2022 Item 10
2 8
624 8th Street
(CURRENT) 1 25 11
9 635 Hoska Dr
Garage/Guest House 2 13 13 25
10 635 Hoska Dr
Main House 1 100 26 Worst Case
11 420 8th Street 1 30 15 Worst Case
12 605 Hoska Dr. 1 20 15 Worst Case
13 610 Hoska Dr. 1 31 15 Worst Case
14 611 Hoska Dr. 1 23 15 Worst Case
15 623 Hoska Dr. 1 34 15 Worst Case
16 624 Hoska Dr 1 24 15 Worst Case
17 636 Hoska Dr. 1 44 15 Worst Case
18 641 Hoska Dr. 1 32 15 Worst Case
19 642 Hoska Dr. 1 32 15 Worst Case
20 660 Hoska Dr. 1 82 15 Worst Case
21 667A Hoska Dr. 1 22 15 Worst Case
22 667 Hoska Dr. 1 33 15 Worst Case
23 668 Hoska Dr. 1 30 15 Worst Case
24 421 9th Street 1 40 15 Worst Case
25 445 9th Street 2 22 22 26 Worst Case
26 901 Highland Ave 2 26 26 26 Worst Case
27 distance? 682 Hoska Dr. 1 20 15 Worst Case
28 distance? 707 Hoska Dr. 2 27 38 15 Worst Case
Front Yard Setback Setback to 2nd Story Building Height Two-Stories = 7 25% 883 254 465
One-Stories = 21 75% 32.7037037 36.28571429 17.22222222 AVERAGE Average 32.7 Average 36.3 Average 17.2
The average building height will be lower as I used the worst case for all.

Attachment E 230 April 4, 2022 Item 10
February 23, 2022, 2021
Dear Members of the Del Mar Planning Commission:

We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed new structure at 624 8th St in Del Mar.

We have been residents of Del Mar since 1982, and have lived at our current address of 667 Hoska Dr since 1999. We have known Janet Wilson and Nigel Hook since shortly after we moved to our current house.

Janet and Nigel’s house on the interior is one of the most strikingly beautiful homes we have ever been in, with dramatically high, backlit beams and a spacious feeling. Unfortunately, given the way the house was sited on the property and the slope of the hill where their lot sits, they have essentially no ocean view from their interior spaces.

One of the few oceans views accessible to Janet and Nigel is towards the southwest from the corner of their living room, a space that we have been in perhaps half a dozen times over the years. At previous times, this view has been a beautiful spot to enjoy the best of Del Mar’s beautiful ocean views. Currently, their view is completely blocked by vegetation near their property line.

The proposed new structure will completely block any possible ocean view from the Hook/Wilson residence at 635 Hoska Dr. We understand that this view is already limited by vegetation which has been allowed to grow to obstruct the view from 635 Hoska Dr, a fact which we deplore and wish could be handled by directed mediation. The fact that neighbors do not get along over vegetation is not uncommon in Del Mar, and should not serve as the pretext to approve a new structure which is disproportionate for the lot and for the neighborhood. A new home can readily be envisaged at 624 8th St which would serve the needs of the current occupants without forever depriving their uphill neighbors of a small view corridor.

We encourage the planning Commission to preserve the essential look and ambiance of our neighborhood, and to protect the view corridor that Janet and Nigel were previously able to enjoy!
Thank you, Dan Donoghue
667 Hoska Dr.

Del Mar, CA 92014
Attachment E 231 April 4, 2022 Item 10
1 Madeline Shute
From: Brooke Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 10:12 AM
To: Jennifer Gavin
Cc: Planning Mail Box
Subject: Item 1 APN: 300-252-14-00
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 Ms. Gavin / City of Del Mar Planning Department,
I am the homeowner of 641 Hoska, which falls within 300 feet of the 624 8th street project. I would like to re-submit my objection to said project in anticipation of the February 23, 2022 hearing.

This construction would violate code 23.08.010, in that this new construction infringes on the property values, natural environment, and the aesthetic quality of the community--and in the case of our neighbors--devastates primary scenic views. It would, in effect, diminish the property values of all Del Mar residents in that it establishes a bad precedent. When purchasing a home in a scenic coastal environment, one considers how current houses obstruct views. This is a critical evaluation that potential homebuyers consider daily in communities such as Del Mar before making such a monumental investment. Current footprint provides considerable information for prospective homebuyers when making that determination.
624 8th Street creates an alarming precedent because it would be impossible to assess the potential of a NEW structure built on an adjacent property at ANY time. It would also initiate something of a height “arms race” in regard to view protection. As one property owner builds up, and blocks a neighbors view, then subsequent property owners are forced to build up to retain their view, etc. This undoubtedly obscures and destroys the current natural environment and aesthetic quality of our seaside town, where scenic beauty is the priority, not Mcmansions.

Code 23.08.010 exists for this very purpose--to ensure that there are limitations to the extent to which a neighbor can diminish the property value of those within proximity. Purchasing a home is one of the most significant investments that most individuals make in a lifetime. How could one properly determine the value of a property if its most valuable characteristics--scenic ocean views--- could potentially be disrupted at any given moment? Part of the code currently applies to "primary scenic view," but in a community such as Del Mar with comfortable weather year round--many people derive enjoyment (and significant property value) from their yards--and not simply their homes. This proposed construction leaves in jeopardy the homes, property values, and quality of life, for thousands of Del Mar residents.

The project is specifically in violation of at least three items under Chapter 23.08. The construction violates Code 23.08.072 letter E : "The design will cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value. " It also violates letter J : "The proposed development locates structures so as to unreasonably, adversely impact upon outdoor areas on adjacent properties." Lastly, it violates Code 23.08.077 letter H: "The proposed development unreasonably encroaches upon primary scenic views of neighboring property." Attachment E 232 April 4, 2022 Item 10
2 Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you. ~Brooke Garcia Attachment E 233 April 4, 2022 Item 10
1 Madeline Shute
From: jacqueline larson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 11:27 AM
To: Planning Mail Box
Cc: jacqueline larson
Subject: Re: Nigel & Janet Hook View
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.

As a professional real estate agent in California for many years. It’s my opinion replacing a 1-story with a 2-story will virtually wipes out the view front anywhere in their yard with significantly decrease their property values.

The design will cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Larson
--
Best Regards,
Jacqueline Kay Larson
Cell 858-736-4594
Box 201 Del Mar, CA 92014
Attachment E 234 April 4, 2022 Item 10
1 Madeline Shute
From: diana marquardt <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 11:21 AM
To: Jennifer Gavin; Planning Mail Box
Subject: 624 8th st
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.

As a resident at 668 Hoska Drive for 35 years, I am committed to preserving our lifestyle and neighborhoods while understanding the need for flexibility and cooperation in our community. The houses surrounding this planned development are almost exclusively one story, almost all on standard lots, and almost all trying to be respectful of neighbors’ views and impact of property values. I am opposed to the plan as presented because of the height and position of the structure.

Respectfully,
Diana Marquardt
Attachment E 235 April 4, 2022 Item 10
1 Madeline Shute
From: Camilla Rang <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2022 8:20 PM
To: Planning Mail Box
Subject: Mitigation needed of the 624 8th Street 2-story planned dwelling 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 Committee,
I have read and looked through all letters, photos and info about the very difficult case of the planned construction of a 2-story house on 624 8th Street. I think we all, including Janet Wilson herself, should not have so severely cut down the hedge between the two properties in 2015 without conferring with the new property owner. On the other hand, that does not change the fact that the planned two story house on 624 8th street is removing all ocean view for Janet Wilson and also is looming over her yard. It sounds like the two parties would benefit from a mediation.

I read a supporting letter from Ms. Kelly Welch, dated Dec 17, 2021. In her letter, in where she supports the 624 8th street 2 story house, she also says that if other houses in her vicinity are to build a 2 story house, she would welcome it "as long as the homes are situated so as not to block views". Which is exactly what the 624 8th street house will do to Janet Wilson.

One solution could perhaps be to build the house so it´s only partially 2 stories so that the Wilsons still could keep most of their view and with privacy glass in potential windows facing the Wilson´s yard? A good example of that (partly 2 story) is 910 Stratford Ct., if you have time to drive by and take a look. This was done to keep the view and light of the home east of 910 Stratford. A beautiful example of privacy glass can be seen at 922 Stratford facing the alley. That agreement was met to keep the privacy of the house across the alley Melanie Way. Del Mar is unique in protecting your home´s value and view, something we all cherish and benefit from. Let´s uphold this unique feature of Del Mar, while also finding wiggling room to upgrade the standards of living from the old beach cottages that now have served their function.

Sincerely,
Camilla Rang
159 10th Street, Del Mar, CA 92014
Attachment E 236 April 4, 2022 Item 10
March 24, 2022
Chelsea and Matt Ziskin
624 8th Street
Del Mar, CA 92014
To Del Mar City Council:

We received notice that the residents of 635 Hoska Drive requested an appeal to the Design Review Board’s approval of our project on February 23, 2022. We have reviewed the appeal request and the Del Mar Municipal Code 1.12.020, specifically section B, Grounds for Appeal. The appeal request does not meet any of the four stated grounds for appeal (which we have explained in more detail in Exhibit A below) and on those grounds, we are requesting the City Council to reject the request for appeal and uphold the decision by the Design Review Board.

In addition to the claims in the request for appeal, the residents of 635 Hoska Drive included a crudely Photoshopped image of their interpretation of the view from their yard when the new home is constructed. While this image does not seem to be relevant as it does not pertain to any of the four grounds for appeal, we worked with our architect to create a more accurate depiction of the view from that section of the 635 Hoska yard which I have included as Exhibit B to this letter. It shows that the proposed project at 624 8th Street will open up a larger ocean view from the 635 Hoska yard than currently exists. During an attempt to find a resolution to the opposition by the 635 Hoska residents, we mentioned the new view our project would create for them, yet they responded that portion of their yard was too far to walk from their home.

As stated above, the request for appeal does not meet the criteria for granting an appeal and we are requesting the City Council deny this request.

Sincerely,
Chelsea and Matt Ziskin
624 8th Street
Del Mar, CA 92014
Attachment F 237 April 4, 2022 Item 10
EXHIBIT A: 635 HOSKA RESIDENT CLAIMS DO NOT MEET GROUNDS FOR APPEAL We have addressed each claim from the request for appeal below and identified why these claims do not meet the grounds for appeal.
• Factual Error: The request for appeal from the residents of 635 Hoska’s council makes claims of two factual errors in their request for appeal which I have pasted below and included our response:

1. “Omitting the existing property (624 8th St.) and the adjacent home (635 Hoska Dr.) resulted in significate misinformation”: The table presented in the staff report did not include factual errors. It explicitly said that it was omitting the 635 Hoska property because it is a Hoska address and that the information about 624 8th was for the proposed property, not the existing property. The judgment of staff on which properties to include in the table is not a factual error and certainly is not grounds for an appeal.

2. “The neighborhood contains more than 10 homes”: The 10 homes included in the staff report were never represented as a comprehensive list of neighborhood homes. Instead, they were listed as homes in the immediate neighborhood on 8th Street. In addition, there is no definition for the term neighborhood in the Del Mar Municipal Code which is acknowledged in the request for appeal. During the DRB meeting, the members openly discussed the fact that the term “neighborhood” is a subjective one and open to the interpretation of the individual board members. A subjective term cannot be interpreted to be a fact and cannot be interpreted as a factual error or be seen as grounds for an appeal of the DRB decision. • New Information: DMMC 1.12.020 section B identifies New Information as information available that was not available to the interested person through reasonable efforts or due diligence at the time of the decision. The “reduction of property value” claim was made by the neighbors at 635 Hoska and discussed by the members of the DRB during the meeting.

The generation of a subjective report making a claim that was already raised during the original meeting does not qualify as new information and is not grounds for granting an appeal to the DRB decision.
• Findings Not Supported: The DRB members openly discussed their findings and how they arrived at their findings. Each member disclosed time spent visiting the 624 8th Street property as well as visiting the neighbors as 635 Hoska. It was clear from the DRB members’ discussion that their findings were based squarely on the information provided to them. As such, an appeal cannot be granted based on findings not supported by the information provided.
• Conflicts: There is no reference in the request for appeal to conflicts and the DRB decision to approve our project was not in conflict with plans, policies, or codes meaning an appeal cannot be granted on the grounds of conflict.

Attachment F 238 April 4, 2022 Item 10
EXHIBIT B: ACCURATE DEPICTION OF VIEW FROM PORTION OF 635 HOSKA YARD View from 635 Hoska yard following project completion (Note: the hedge shown on the left side of the fence is on the 635 Hoska property and they will control access to that view) Existing view from portion of the 635 Hoska yard
Attachment F 239 April 4, 2022 Item 10
EXHIBIT B: ACCURATE DEPICTION OF VIEW FROM PORTION OF 635 HOSKA YARD (continued) For context, we included a satellite image below to show the approximate 241’ west frontage of the 635 Hoska property. The proposed 624 8th Street home is 36’ wide representing less than 15% of the overall west frontage of the 635 Hoska property.

Attachment F 240 April 4, 2022 Item 10
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable City Council Members
FROM: Mayor Dwight Worden and Deputy Mayor Tracy Martinez Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
Prepared by Sarah Krietor, Management Analyst/Acting City Clerk DATE: April 4, 2022
SUBJECT: Update Regarding Potential Revisions to City Campaign and Temporary Signage Regulations
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Mayor Worden and Deputy Mayor Martinez recommend the City Council receive an update on their proposed revisions to the City’s campaign and temporary signage regulations and direct staff to prepare and process draft code amendments for implementation prior to the November 2022 General Election.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

On October 4, 2021, Mayor Worden and Deputy Mayor Martinez presented a proposal for City Council consideration to revise the City’s sign regulations to allow placement of temporary campaign yard signs in the right-of-way adjacent to residential private property in locations that otherwise appear to be within private yards, typically located between the residential unit and the street (Attachment A). The objective is to allow campaign signs to be placed temporarily in unimproved locations of the public right-of-way where sign placement would not conflict with the paved areas of streets and sidewalks and would not create a safety issue or nuisance. City Council discussed the proposal, provided feedback and directed staff to work with the City Attorney’s Office to explore the parameters, legal framework, and feasibility of amending the City’s sign code for the intended purpose and provide options for the City Council’s consideration.

Based on feedback provided by the City Attorney and staff, it is recommended the City Council review the additional information provided in this report and direct staff to return with a draft ordinance for City Council consideration in June 2022, to ensure implementation prior to the campaign period for the November 2022 General Election. The narrow scope of the proposed amendments would allow the City to address the concerns and enforcement issues raised during the 2020 General Election without a more comprehensive review and update to the City’s sign code which would be a more complex and resource intensive work plan item.

Proposed Revisions to Regulations for Placement of Temporary Campaign Signs The objective of the code amendments is to accommodate campaign and other temporary signage in unimproved locations of the public right-of-way where sign placement would not create a safety issue or nuisance. Many City street rights-of-ways are not improved with pavement and sidewalk to the full dedicated width, which can lead to confusion regarding where property lines begin. Therefore, the proposed revisions are intended to address sign placement concerns and enforcement issues that were raised during prior elections. 1 April 4, 2022 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
Proposed Code Changes Related to Temporary Signage
April 4, 2022

Based on the considerations raised by the City Council (described in more detail in this report) and input from the City Attorney’s Office and staff, it is recommended the City Council direct staff to draft amendments to the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) related to temporary signage which would only be applicable to residential zones and specifically address the provisions described below.

Type of Change Impact Description
Add exception Accommodate temporary
signs, including campaign
and other noncommercial
temporary signs, in
unimproved locations of the
public right-of-way in
residential zones where sign
placement would not create a
safety issue or nuisance
All temporary signs, including campaign
signs, would be permitted in the right of
way adjacent to residential private
property in locations that would not
conflict with the paved areas of streets
and sidewalks
Identify criteria for
exception
Minimize potential for safety
or nuisance issues and allow
for removal of signs that
create a nuisance or safety
issue
Signs would not be permitted to block
automotive or pedestrian sight lines,
impede the flow of automobile, bicycle, or
pedestrian traffic (i.e., free passage over
any public right of way), or otherwise
conflict with the public health and safety
Maintain current rules that prohibit
campaign signs in City street medians,
unpaved walking areas, inside traffic
circles, attached to utility poles, street
light standards, or trees, on City parcels,
or in environmentally sensitive resource
locations including but not limited to areas
of the beach, lagoon, wetlands, and
habitat
Modify the method
of calculation for
permitted sign
area
Allow flexibility in the
temporary sign regulations for
multiple campaign signs to be
posted
Clarify that the calculation of permitted
sign area for temporary signs shall
calculate only one side of the sign face
towards the maximum size of the
permitted sign area
Campaigns signs are one type of temporary sign. As protected noncommercial speech, campaign signs must be regulated similarly to other non-commercial temporary signs. Following is a description of the components of the proposal that will ensure consistency and minimize the potential for impacts to the public health and safety:
• Temporary signs, including campaign signs, would be permitted in the right-of-way through a limited exception applicable to residential zones. • The exception would provide for temporary signs to be placed in the right-of-way adjacent to residential private property in locations that would not conflict with the paved areas of streets and sidewalks.
2 April 4, 2022 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
Proposed Code Changes Related to Temporary Signage
April 4, 2022

• As mentioned in the table above, signs would not be permitted to block automotive or pedestrian sight lines, impede the flow of automobile, bicycle, or pedestrian traffic, or otherwise conflict with the public health and safety.
• Temporary signs that create a nuisance or safety issue would be removed. • Consistent with the current sign regulations, temporary signs including campaign signs would continue to be prohibited in City street medians, in unpaved walking areas, inside traffic circles, on City parcels, attached to utility poles, street light standards, or trees, or in environmentally sensitive resource locations including but not limited to areas of the beach, lagoon, wetlands, and habitat.
• Other provisions of the sign code applicable to temporary signage, such as duration of placement, would remain unchanged.

Timeline for Ordinance Adoption
The sign regulations are part of the City’s zoning code, which means a Planning Commission review and recommendation hearing is required prior to City Council adoption. In order to have the changes in place by the close of the candidate filing period for the upcoming 2022 General Election (on or around August 12, 2022), the following schedule is proposed:
• Planning Commission recommendation hearing on May 10, 2022 • City Council ordinance introduction hearing on June 20, 2022 • City Council adoption hearing on July 11, 2022
• If adopted, ordinance would become effective on August 11, 2022 Potential Issues/Concerns Identified by City Council
During the October 4, 2021, discussion City Council identified areas of concern where more information was needed for the Council to make an informed decision regarding the temporary campaign sign code amendment proposal. These issues have been vetted with the City Attorney’s Office and staff and additional information on each item is provided below.

Campaign Sign Specific Regulations
Currently, the DMMC does not differentiate between campaign and other non-commercial sign content. The City Council discussed the question of whether the temporary sign regulations can be amended and applied solely to campaign signs or whether the City’s temporary sign regulations must apply consistently to all temporary non-commercial signs. The City Attorney’s Office advised it would be problematic to adopt sign code regulations that apply a different standard to campaign signs than other temporary non-commercial signs because this would be considered a content-based speech restriction and trigger strict legal scrutiny. Based on this guidance, the proposed code amendments would expand where temporary non-commercial signs are allowed but would not create different rules for different types of temporary signage, such as campaign signs.

Temporary Sign Size Limits
Currently, the DMMC limits temporary signs in residential zones to 5.5 square feet displayed for each individual unit. The City Council discussed whether a review of the temporary sign code size limit restrictions is needed. The City Attorney’s office and staff have reviewed this consideration and determined that adjusting the City’s temporary sign size limits would require the City to thoroughly evaluate size limit options based on strict legal criteria which would be complex and resource intensive. Due to the time constraint associated with the November 2022 General Election, revising temporary sign size limits is not recommended at this time. Instead, the 3 April 4, 2022 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
Proposed Code Changes Related to Temporary Signage
April 4, 2022

proposed amendments include a clarification that the calculation of permitted sign area shall calculate only one side of the sign face towards the maximum size.

Suspending Enforcement Alternative
The City Council also discussed whether the City could suspend enforcement of temporary sign regulations for a specific period of time during an election cycle. The City Attorney’s office advised that the City could consider amending the code to suspend enforcement of temporary noncommercial signs before and after an election; however, there is some risk in doing so. While some cities, such as City of Roseville, have adopted this approach, it has never been tested in the courts and therefore comes with some risk as it is not possible to predict whether a court would see enforcement suspension during elections as a truly content-neutral approach.

Additionally, this approach may be an overly broad solution to the specific placement issues raised in recent elections. For these reasons, suspending enforcement is not recommended.

Enforcement Considerations
In addition to the legal parameters, City staff also looked into enforcement challenges that may arise out of the proposed revisions. While current enforcement efforts are based on the requirement that temporary signs not be placed in the right-of-way, enforcement under the proposed revised code would be based on health and safety. In order to educate the public on the new regulations and related enforcement, staff would prepare an updated campaign signs primer to distribute to City Council candidates and the public and post on the election page of the City’s website. While the goal of the proposed code amendments is to reduce confusion and make the City’s temporary sign regulations and enforcement clearer and more understandable to the public, the City expects that educational efforts and complaint driven Code Enforcement responses will still be needed under the proposed revisions.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:

On October 4, 2021, City Council reviewed the proposal related to revisions to the City’s rules for placement of temporary campaign signs and directed staff to return with an update on the legal parameters and framework at a future meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There are sufficient funds in the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Capital and Operating Budget to cover the legal and staff time associated with his agenda item.

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(a)(1) 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:

This is an operation item previously identified by the City Council and is unrelated to the City Councils Goals & Priorities.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A - October 4, 2021 Agenda Report
4 April 4, 2022 Item 11
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Deputy Mayor Dwight Worden and Councilmember Tracy Martinez Via Ashley Jones, Interim City Manager
DATE: October 4, 2021
SUBJECT: Council Discussion Regarding Potential Revisions to City Rules for Placement of Campaign Signs
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Deputy Mayor Worden and Councilmember Martinez recommend that the City Council discuss and consider potential revisions to City’s rules for placement of campaign related yard signs in preparation for the November 2022 General Election, and, if appropriate, direct staff to draft code amendments implementing the changes.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

Chapter 30.84 of the City’s Municipal Code provides sign regulations, including campaign signs, for the City of Del Mar. Del Mar’s current rules prohibit placing political campaign yard signs in the public right of way during campaign season. A summary of the current campaign sign regulations is included with this agenda report as Attachment A. Because the rights of way for Del Mar streets are often much wider than the actual paved area of the streets, and because the right of way boundaries are typically not marked, many campaign signs have historically been placed outside of the paved area of streets in what appear to be front yards, but are technically in the right of way. This situation has led to enforcement difficulties for City staff, and to difficulties and frustrations for those desiring to place campaign signs in their front yard area.

While revising the City’s rules for placement of campaign signs is not currently an identified Tier 1 or Tier 2 workplan item, Deputy Mayor Worden and Councilmember Martinez believe it should be considered as a priority prior to the next City General Election scheduled for November 2022, with campaign activities expected to begin in late spring/early summer 2022. During the 2020 General Election, the City received many complaints about the existing campaign sign rules. As such, Deputy Mayor Worden and Councilmember Martinez believe the Council should consider updating these rules before the campaign season starts again. This will also ensure City staff has a clear understanding of the City’s allowances for placement and removal related to campaign signs.

Deputy Mayor Worden and Councilmember Martinez have drafted a proposal to modify these rules. As proposed, temporary campaign yard signs could be placed in the area of the right of way beyond the paved areas of streets and sidewalks where the area may appear to be private property but is actually public right of way. Only those campaign signs placed in the right-of-way

ATTACHMENT A
5 April 4, 2022 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
Proposal to Revise Campaign Yard Sign Placement Rules
October 4, 2021

that block traffic sight lines, impede the flow of automobile, bicycle, or pedestrian traffic, or create a public nuisance or other public health and safety issues would be removed. The proposal would not modify the current rules that prohibits campaign signs in City street medians, in unpaved walking areas, inside traffic circles, on City parcels, or in environmentally sensitive resource locations including but not limited to areas of the beach, lagoon, wetlands, and habitat. Any signs placed in these locations will be removed.

Deputy Mayor Worden and Councilmember Martinez are bringing this proposal forward for conceptual review and feedback from the public and City Council. If the City Council supports the changes outlined in this conceptual proposal, the next step would be to direct staff to prepare draft code amendments to implement the proposal, which would need to go to the Planning Commission for feedback and come back to the City Council for formal adoption.

It is estimated that approximately 66 hours of staff time would be needed to move this item through the necessary process, which would include preparing the code changes, drafting notices and reports and preparing presentations for the Planning Commission and City Council hearing processes. There will also need to be City Attorney review of the proposed code changes and related documents. Recognizing that staff time and resources are limited, Deputy Mayor Worden and Councilmember Martinez are offering to assist with preparation of the draft code amendments, understanding that these drafts will need to go through the normal staff and legal counsel review process.

Should the Council direct staff to move forward with the proposed changes to the municipal code, the targeted timeline for completion would be late spring/early summer so that the new rules could be implemented for the City’s General Election in November 2022.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:

The City most recently amended Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 30.84 on December 5, 2016.

FISCAL IMPACT:

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

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:

This item is not included on the current list of City Council Goals & Priorities.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Current City of Del Mar Campaign Sign Information Attachment B – Supplemental Information on Conceptual Proposal to Revise Campaign Yard Sign Placement Rules
6 April 4, 2022 Item 11

ATTACHMENT A
City of Del Mar
Campaign Sign Information
Nothing in the Del Mar Municipal Code authorizes the display or placement of a sign on a public or private right-of-way. To be in compliance with the Del Mar Municipal Code and avoid a seizure fee, please make sure any signs are placed on private property and only with the property owner’s permission.

The City right-of-way in most residential areas do not contain sidewalks and properties do not extend to the road’s paved surface. Therefore, as a rule of thumb, signs should be posted approximately 8-12 feet from the edge of pavement or curb to ensure that they are not in the right-of-way.

Per the Del Mar Municipal Code, temporary signs are signs that are maintained for 60 days or less and do not exceed an area of 5.5 square feet displayed for each individual unit for residential zones and a maximum of 6 square feet for commercial zones.

Please refer to Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 30.84- Signs for complete regulations.

Additionally, per Del Mar Municipal Code Section 2.16.050- Identification of Source of Campaign Material, “when placing advertisements on large signs, as defined by Title 2, Section 18450.1(a) of the California Code of Regulations, City Council candidates and candidate-controlled committees shall make their advertising disclosures as if formed as independent expenditure committees under Government Code Sec. 82013(b).”
7 April 4, 2022 Item 11

ATTACHMENT B

BACKGROUND INFORMATION REGARDING PROPOSAL

TO MODIFY DEL MAR CAMPAIGN SIGN PLACEMENT RULES
Provided by Deputy Mayor Worden/Councilmember Martinez
Examples of right of way boundary lines and pavement. Typical Del Mar residential streets are 40 feet of right of way with 24 feet, sometimes less, of actual pavement. In some areas the right of way and the pavement are smaller.

Intersection of Crest Road and Via Alta. Note that the right of way lines are shown in black well outside the paved area:
8 April 4, 2022 Item 11
Intersection of 11th Street and Stratford Court. While the space between the pavement and the right of way lines is less here, it is prime campaign sign territory that is heavily used. Technically, most of the 2020 campaign signs placed in this area were in violation of the rules, but most were not removed.
9 April 4, 2022 Item 11
Other Issues raised by the current campaign sign rules. Here are some of the challenging issues raised by the current Del Mar campaign sign rules that the proposal would eliminate:
 Easements Versus Fees. Many Del Mar streets are easements overlaying private fee ownerships which extend to the street centerline. The placement of campaign signs outside the pavement but inside the right of way in these private fee ownership areas does not impede the city street easement rights. However, disallowing campaign signs in this area may infringe upon the owner’s private fee ownership and First Amendment rights.
 Surveys. The City of Del Mar does not have a master survey map that indicates the actual location of private property boundaries and the extent of street easements. Without a survey, enforcement of the right of way boundary is complicated because neither the City nor the adjoining/underlying owner knows for sure where the right of way lines are. City mapping software provides a general location, but it is not as accurate as a survey. Surveys are expensive and unnecessary. The proposal would avoid this problem by focusing on the visible paved area versus right of way lines, which are not visible.  Complaint Driven Enforcement. Historically, the city has enforced the campaign sign rules in response to complaints. This has led to uneven enforcement and unannounced removal of signs. Under the proposal City staff would still respond to complaints but could determine if the signs are properly located based on safety not estimates of where the right of way lines might be, making enforcement easier and more objective.  Del Mar History. Del Mar has a long and valued tradition of residents posting campaign signs during the campaign season. Many have placed their signs in front of their homes in the same place for years, but many, technically, violate the rules and are subject to unannounced removal.
 First Amendment. Campaign signs are an important expression of First Amendment rights. The City puts itself at risk by having rules that are difficult to follow and by engaging in enforcement that may be perceived to be uneven or otherwise suspect. The proposed new rules would avoid this risk by allowing campaign signs except where safety requires removal. The city’s right to remove signs for safety reasons is well established.  Denial of Right to Have a Legal Sign. In some areas of Del Mar strict enforcement of the current rules would preclude the placement of visible campaign signs. For example, the areas fronting Sandy Lane along Camino Del Mar, and portions of Jimmy Durante, have walls presumed to be on the boundary between the private property boundary and the street right of way. Current rules would not allow campaign signs on the visible side of 10 April 4, 2022 Item 11
these walls, while the proposal would, so long as the campaign signs are safely placed outside the paved area.

Current city campaign and sign regulations. Campaign activities are regulated by Council Policy 108 “DEL MAR FAIR CAMPAIGN PRACTICES.” This policy does not address campaign yard signs.

Chapter 30.84 of the Del Mar Municipal Code sets forth sign regulations. Section 30.84.050(c)1 prohibits the placement of signs in the public right of way. Section 30.84.070 identifies certain signs as exempt from regulation, but does not mention campaign yard signs. Likewise, Section

30.84.080 lists exemptions from the sign regulation chapter. It identifies more than ten types of exempt signs, but does not reference campaign yard signs. Section 23.08.079 addresses signs under the Design Review Ordinance, but does not address campaign yard signs.

Monterey County regulates campaign yard signs based on traffic obstruction and safety, not right of way boundary lines, see Monterrey County Code Section 16.24.020(c):
“No political sign shall be erected in such a manner that it will, or reasonably may be expected to obstruct, the view of, or conflict with any traffic sign, signal, or device. A political sign shall not be erected in such a manner that it will, or reasonably may be expected to obstruct, the view of pedestrian or vehicular traffic.”
1 C. - DMMC Section 30.84.050(c): “Unless authorized by other provisions of the Chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person to post, erect, or maintain any sign within the public right-ofway without first obtaining a Sign Encroachment Permit from the Planning Commission in accordance with this Chapter.”
11 April 4, 2022 Item 11
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Sarah Krietor, Management Analyst/Acting City Clerk Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: April 4, 2022
SUBJECT: Amendment to City Council Policy 200 Pertaining to the Service of Significant Others
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider adoption of a Resolution (Attachment A) amending City Council Policy 200-City Council Advisory Committees, Boards, and Commissions (Exhibit A to Attachment A) to prohibit immediate family members, including significant others or spouses, of City Council Members from serving or being appointed to serve simultaneously on the Design Review Board or Planning Commission.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

This is not a City staff-initiated agenda item. This item was initiated at the direction of the City Council, as suggested by Councilmember Druker, provided on January 10, 2022, at which time the City Council directed staff to return at a future meeting with revisions to Section C of Council Policy 200 which would prohibit significant others or spouses of Council Members from serving or being appointed to serve simultaneously on the Design Review Board (DRB) or Planning Commission (PC).

City Council Policy 200 City Council Advisory Committees, Board, Commissions (Council Policy 200) includes procedures for City Council appointments to subordinate bodies, membership requirements, and other policy requirements applicable to the City’s advisory committees, DRB, and PC. On January 10, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 2022-07 amending Council Policy 200 to make various updates to membership requirements and appointment procedures.

Based on the potential perception and conflict of interest concerns raised by members of the City Council at the January 2022 meeting, staff is recommending the Policy include the broader definition of immediate family member, which includes parent, child, spouse, significant other, or sibling living in the same household. And, in order to provide clarity on implementation of the Policy to City Council, PC and DRB members, staff and the public, staff included a resignation requirement that would be applicable in the event that a PC or DRB member’s immediate family member is elected to serve on the City Council. 1 April 4, 2022 Item 12
City Council Agenda Report
Amendment to City Council Policy 200
April 4, 2022

As currently written, Section C of Policy 200 requires a City Council member to recuse themselves when voting on an appointment if their significant other or spouse is an applicant to serve on the Planning Commission or Design Review Board. However, it does not prohibit simultaneous service. Consistent with the concerns raised by the City Council at the January 10, 2022, Council meeting, the proposed revised Policy language is as follows:

8. Because of conflicts of interest which might exist, or which might give the appearance to the public of existing, and in order to preserve public confidence in the City’s vital planning processes and avoid questions of fairness and bias, prejudice or influence, the immediate family member, of a City Council member, Design Review Board Member or Planning Commissioner may not serve or be appointed to serve simultaneously on the Design Review Board or Planning Commission. For purposes of this policy, immediate family member is defined as an individual’s parent, child, spouse, significant other, or sibling living in the same household.

9. In accordance with Section C(8) of this policy, should an immediate family member of a Design Review Board Member or Planning Commissioner be elected to serve on the City Council, said Board Member or Commissioner shall be required to resign from their position no later than the day prior to the day the City Council member’s term of office commences.

A redline version of Council Policy 200 showing the proposed change is included with this agenda report as Attachment B.

If the City Council desires to amend Council Policy 200 as described in this agenda report, it is recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution (Attachment A) approving Council Policy 200 as amended (Exhibit A to Attachment A).

FISCAL IMPACT:

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

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:

This is an operational item and not specifically related to the identified Council goals and priorities for FY 2021-2022.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A- Resolution Amending City Council Policy 200 Exhibit A to Attachment A- Amended City Council Policy 200 (Clean) Attachment B-Redline Amended City Council Policy 200
2 April 4, 2022 Item 12

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL
MAR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING COUNCIL POLICY 200

COMMITTEES - CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMITTEES,

BOARDS, AND COMMISSIONS
WHEREAS, the establishment and updating of City Council policies provides a mechanism for articulating methods and procedures for the conduct of City Council business; and
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar has maintained a City Council Policy Book, adopted and utilized by the City Council for many years; and
WHEREAS, it is beneficial to periodically review and revise policies that govern the operational processes, procedures, and regulations that apply to the City’s advisory committees, boards and commissions; and
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2014-70 establishing Council Policy 200: City Council Advisory Committees, Boards, and Commissions (Council Policy 200); and
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019-33 amending Council Policy 200 to include language prohibiting City Council members from voting on appointments to any of the City’s boards, commissions, or committees in which their significant other is an applicant; and
WHEREAS on January 10, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No 2022-07 amending various sections of Council Policy 200 and also directed staff to return with further amendments to Council Policy 200 prohibiting the simultaneous service or appointment of a City Council Member’s immediate family member, significant other or spouse to the Design Review Board or Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to amend Council Policy 200 to prohibit immediate family members, including significant others or spouses, of City Council Members from serving or being appointed to serve simultaneously on the Design Review Board or Planning Commission.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, hereby amends Council Policy 200: City Council Advisory Committees, Boards, and Commissions as shown in Exhibit A to this resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amendments to Council Policy 200 shall be incorporated into the City Council Policy Book.
3 April 4, 2022 Item 12
Resolution No. 2022-XX

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held this 4th day of April 2022. ___________________________
Dwight Worden, 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, Acting City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2022- XX, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 4th day of April 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_________________________________
Sarah Krietor, Acting City Clerk
City of Del Mar
4 April 4, 2022 Item 12

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
200

CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY

COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND

COMMISSIONS
DATE REVISED:

BY RESOLUTION: 2022-
PAGES: PAGE 1 OF 6
POLICY:

A. Vacancies
It is the City Council policy to advertise vacancies of the City Council advisory committees, Design Review Board, and Planning Commission on the City website for a minimum of 10 calendar days, and at least once in the Del Mar Weekly and/or through CivicSend eblast.

Upcoming vacancies may also be announced by the City Manager or Council Members at City Council meetings. The deadline for interested citizens to file a Citizen Interest Form (application) is by the close of business (4:30 p.m.) on a Friday.

B. Council Appointments to City Council Advisory Committees

1. It shall be the policy of the City Council to direct its liaisons to each Council advisory committee to make recommendations to the full Council regarding appointments to City Council advisory committees.

2. If by the application deadline, the number of applications received by the City for such committees is equal to the number of vacancies, or less than the number of vacancies when recruiting for multiple vacancies, the Council liaisons to the specific committee shall determine whether to extend the deadline or review the Citizen Interest Form(s) and/or interview the applicant(s), and make a recommendation to Council that the applicant(s) be appointed to serve on the committee.

3. If by the application deadline, the number of applications received by the City for such committees is more than the number of vacancies, then the Council liaisons to the specific committee shall review the Citizen Interest Forms and/or interview the applicant(s). Council liaisons shall then make a recommendation to Council as to which applicant(s) should be appointed to serve on the committee. If the Council liaisons determine the applicants are not qualified or do not meet the needs of the committee, the application period may be reopened by the Council liaisons in order to solicit additional interest.

4. If the Council liaisons to a committee cannot agree on a recommendation for appointment(s), they shall direct staff to prepare an agenda report for the next available City Council meeting where the City Council will vote on the appointment without discussion. Three affirmative votes are needed in order for the City Council to make an appointment. If an applicant does not receive the necessary votes, the Council may re-vote or may direct staff to reopen the vacancy to solicit additional interest.

Exhibit A to Attachment A
5 April 4, 2022 Item 12

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
200

CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY

COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND

COMMISSIONS
DATE REVISED:

BY RESOLUTION: 2022-
PAGES: PAGE 2 OF 6

5. Applicants nominated to serve on a Council advisory committee are encouraged, but not required, to attend the City Council meeting when the City Council is scheduled to consider their appointment to serve on the Committee.

6. In the event that there is only one Council liaison to an advisory committee, the Mayor will act as the second Council liaison for the purposes of reviewing Citizen Interest Forms to recommend to the City Council for appointment.

7. Prior to the City Council meeting where the Council will vote on an appointment, any Council member can request an un-redacted copy of all qualified Citizen Interest Forms in order to review applicant information and contact interested applicant(s) prior to the meeting if so desired.

8. In accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 2.30 “Commissions, Boards and Committees: General Provisions”, it shall be the City Council’s policy to select for appointment the candidates who received three affirmative votes by the City Council. In the case where a candidate does not receive three affirmative votes, the Council may revote or direct the City Clerk to re-advertise the vacancy.

9. When there are open vacancies for City Council advisory committees, other than Planning Commission or Design Review Board, the City Clerk will bring forward to the City Council the names of the candidates, the number of vacancies, and the liaison recommendation(s).

The City Council will then vote on the recommendation to fill the vacancies. When the Council liaisons to a committee agree on a recommendation for appointment, the item will be included on the consent calendar. When the Council liaisons to a committee do not agree on the recommendation for appointment, the item will be brought forward as a Council Business item as described in Section B(4) of this policy.

10. If the spouse or significant other of a City Council member is an applicant to fill a vacancy on an advisory committee, the City Council member must recuse themselves from voting on that appointment.

C. Council Appointments to the Design Review Board and Planning Commission

1. The City Council shall make appointments to the Planning Commission and Design Review Board in accordance with the membership requirements of Chapter 2.34 “Planning Commission” and 2.38 “Design Review Board” of the Del Mar Municipal Code, respectively.

2. It shall be the policy of the City Council to hold interviews for appointments to the Planning Commission and Design Review Board only when applications received for such commission or board exceed the number of vacancies. 6 April 4, 2022 Item 12

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
200

CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY

COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND

COMMISSIONS
DATE REVISED:

BY RESOLUTION: 2022-
PAGES: PAGE 3 OF 6

3. Interviews shall be public and televised as part of the City Council meeting.

4. If, by the application deadline, the number of applications received by the City for such board or commission equals or is less than the number of vacancies, then there shall be an automatic extension of time to accept applications.

5. Prior to the City Council meeting where the Council will vote on an appointment, an un-redacted copy of all qualified Citizen Interest Forms will be provided to the full City Council in order to allow the full Council to review applicant information and contact interested applicant(s) prior to the meeting if so desired.

6. In accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 2.30 “Commissions, Boards and Committees: General Provisions”, it shall be the City Council’s policy to select for appointment the candidates who received three affirmative votes by the City Council. In the case where a candidate does not receive three affirmative votes, the Council may re-vote or direct the City Clerk to re-advertise the vacancy.

7. When there are advertised vacancies for Planning Commission or Design Review Board, the City Clerk will bring forward to the City Council the names of the candidates and the number of vacancies. After interviewing candidates in a public forum, the City Council will vote on the candidates to fill the vacancies. The City Clerk will read aloud the vote of each Council member.

8. Because of conflicts of interest which might exist, or which might give the appearance to the public of existing, and in order to preserve public confidence in the City’s vital planning processes and avoid questions of fairness and bias, prejudice or influence, the immediate family member, of a City Council member, Design Review Board Member or Planning Commissioner may not serve or be appointed to serve simultaneously on the Design Review Board or Planning Commission. For purposes of this policy, immediate family member is defined as an individual’s parent, child, spouse, significant other, or sibling living in the same household.

9. In accordance with Section C(8) of this policy, should an immediate family member of a Design Review Board Member or Planning Commissioner be elected to serve on the City Council, said Board Member or Commissioner shall be required to resign from their position no later than the day prior to the day the City Council member’s term of office commences.
7 April 4, 2022 Item 12

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
200

CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY

COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND

COMMISSIONS
DATE REVISED:

BY RESOLUTION: 2022-
PAGES: PAGE 4 OF 6
D. City Advisory Committee Membership Categories

1. Subject to the membership limits set forth in Section E(6) of this policy, the City Council may designate seat(s) for ex-officio members in a committee’s charter. Exofficio members are non-voting subject matter experts who may be residents or nonresidents.

2. Subject to the membership limits set forth in Section E(6) of this policy, the City Council may designate membership categories for business representatives in a committee’s charter. Business representatives are business owners or operators whose business has a physical entity within the City of Del Mar and who have a current City of Del Mar business license.

E. Concurrent Committee Assignments, Term Limits and Length, Membership Size and Rotation of Chair and Vice Chair

1. It shall be the policy of the City Council to limit the number of concurrent appointments that any one individual has to City Council advisory committees, Design Review Board, and Planning Commission. The limit of concurrent appointments shall be two. If an individual has two concurrent appointments, they will not be eligible to serve on ad hoc committees, except in special circumstances as determined by the Council or Council liaisons.

2. The number of consecutive terms an individual may serve on a committee is two, as further described in Section E(5) below. However, the City Council has the flexibility to make an exception if they feel it is to the benefit of the committee to re-appoint an individual for a third term. Committee members who would like to continue to serve another term once their appointed term has expired must re-apply by filing a Citizen Interest Form prior to the advertised deadline for applications. Former committee members must wait one year from the expiration of their second consecutive term before being appointed to the same committee.

3. The term length for all City Council advisory committees shall be three years. Terms will expire on the last day of the month.

4. The term length for voting members of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board shall be four years, in accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code Sections

2.34.020 and 2.38.020, respectively. The term length for ex-officio members on the Design Review Board shall be two years, in accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code Section 2.38.020.
8 April 4, 2022 Item 12

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
200

CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY

COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND

COMMISSIONS
DATE REVISED:

BY RESOLUTION: 2022-
PAGES: PAGE 5 OF 6

5. In order to ensure that terms remain appropriately staggered, individuals appointed to fill an unexpired vacancy shall finish the remainder of the term of the vacating committee member. If the balance of the vacant term is less than six (6) months, it shall not count as a term towards the two-consecutive-term limit.

6. All City advisory committees have a maximum committee membership of seven (7) to nine (9) total members, including ex-officio members, at the recommendation of the committee’s Council liaisons and approval of the full City Council. If a committee membership size is to be reduced via attrition, attrition shall not affect members who complete their first term and are eligible and wiling to serve a second term. However, such members must be recommended for reappointment by the committee’s Council liaisons, and their reappointment shall be confirmed by the full Council at a Council meeting.

7. It shall be the policy of the City Council that the members of each advisory committee appoint a chair, vice chair and secretary at the last meeting of the calendar year, with the new chair serving at the first meeting of the new year, and that the these positions rotate annually among all the committee members. It is recommended that the vice chair assist with committee responsibilities and provide for a succession plan for chairing the committee. In the event a committee does not have volunteers to serve as chair and vice chair, then the committee has the flexibility to allow consecutive appointments to the chair/vice chair or secretary positions, i.e. rotation of such positions among the members is not required if there are no volunteers to serve in those positions.

At the discretion of the committee, the vice chair and secretary positions may be filled by the same committee member.

8. It shall be the policy of the City Council that the members of the Design Review Board and Planning Commission appoint a chair and vice chair at the last meeting of the calendar year, with the new chair serving at the first meeting of the new year, and that the these positions should rotate annually among all the members. The functions of a secretary for the Design Review Board and Planning Commission, such as preparing minutes, will be managed by City staff.

F. Incumbents to Serve Until New Appointments Confirmed It shall be the policy of the City Council to allow an incumbent on a City Council advisory committee, Design Review Board, or Planning Commission, whose term has expired to continue to officially serve until the vacancy is filled or three months has passed, whichever occurs sooner.
9 April 4, 2022 Item 12

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
200

CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY

COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND

COMMISSIONS
DATE REVISED:

BY RESOLUTION: 2022-
PAGES: PAGE 6 OF 6
G. Attendance Policy for Boards, Commissions, and Committees In accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 2.30, if a member of a City advisory committee, Design Review Board, or Planning Commission is absent from three regular, adjourned, or special meetings within a 12-month period without cause, the term of said member is automatically vacated. Council liaisons to the commission, board, or committee shall determine whether the absence was for cause. If an advisory committee, which does not include the Design Review Board or Planning Commission, does not have two Council liaisons, then the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor shall act as liaisons to that commission, board, or committee for this purpose. If the liaisons do not agree about whether the absences were without cause so as to warrant removal, the item will be presented to the full City Council to make the determination.

H. Formation and Dissolution of Boards, Commissions, and Committees

1. New committees must be formed by Resolution of the City Council and must include a committee charter detailing, the committee mission/purpose, type of committee (standing or ad-hoc), membership requirements, conflict of interest requirements, and open meeting requirements.

2. If the newly formed committee is an ad-hoc committee, the Resolution and charter should include a sunset date. The sunset date can be extended by Council action, if necessary.

3. Committees may be dissolved by Resolution of the City Council at any time or during the annual review of the City Council Local Appointments. Ad hoc committees shall automatically be dissolved on their sunset date unless extended in advance by the City Council.

I. City Council Review of City Board, Commission, and Committee System At least every four (4) years the City Council shall establish a subcommittee or alternative process to review the City’s boards, commission and committee system to provide recommendations to improve committee efficiencies to the City Council. However, the City Council may, in its discretion, elect to review the City’s boards, commission and committee system outside of the four (4) year review as it deems necessary. 10 April 4, 2022 Item 12

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
200

CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY

COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND

COMMISSIONS
DATE REVISED: 1/10/2022
BY RESOLUTION: 2022-07
PAGES: PAGE 1 OF 6
POLICY:

A. Vacancies
It is the City Council policy to advertise vacancies of the City Council advisory committees, Design Review Board, and Planning Commission on the City website for a minimum of 10 calendar days, and at least once in the Del Mar Weekly and/or through CivicSend eblast.

Upcoming vacancies may also be announced by the City Manager or Council Members at City Council meetings. The deadline for interested citizens to file a Citizen Interest Form (application) is by the close of business (4:30 p.m.) on a Friday.

B. Council Appointments to City Council Advisory Committees

1. It shall be the policy of the City Council to direct its liaisons to each Council advisory committee to make recommendations to the full Council regarding appointments to City Council advisory committees.

2. If by the application deadline, the number of applications received by the City for such committees is equal to the number of vacancies, or less than the number of vacancies when recruiting for multiple vacancies, the Council liaisons to the specific committee shall determine whether to extend the deadline or review the Citizen Interest Form(s) and/or interview the applicant(s), and make a recommendation to Council that the applicant(s) be appointed to serve on the committee.

3. If by the application deadline, the number of applications received by the City for such committees is more than the number of vacancies, then the Council liaisons to the specific committee shall review the Citizen Interest Forms and/or interview the applicant(s). Council liaisons shall then make a recommendation to Council as to which applicant(s) should be appointed to serve on the committee. If the Council liaisons determine the applicants are not qualified or do not meet the needs of the committee, the application period may be reopened by the Council liaisons in order to solicit additional interest.

4. If the Council liaisons to a committee cannot agree on a recommendation for appointment(s), they shall direct staff to prepare an agenda report for the next available City Council meeting where the City Council will vote on the appointment without discussion. Three affirmative votes are needed in order for the City Council to make an appointment. If an applicant does not receive the necessary votes, the Council may re-vote or may direct staff to reopen the vacancy to solicit additional interest.

ATTACHMENT B
Formatted
11 April 4, 2022 Item 12

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
200

CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY

COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND

COMMISSIONS
DATE REVISED: 1/10/2022
BY RESOLUTION: 2022-07
PAGES: PAGE 2 OF 6

5. Applicants nominated to serve on a Council advisory committee are encouraged, but not required, to attend the City Council meeting when the City Council is scheduled to consider their appointment to serve on the Committee.

6. In the event that there is only one Council liaison to an advisory committee, the Mayor will act as the second Council liaison for the purposes of reviewing Citizen Interest Forms to recommend to the City Council for appointment.

7. Prior to the City Council meeting where the Council will vote on an appointment, any Council member can request an un-redacted copy of all qualified Citizen Interest Forms in order to review applicant information and contact interested applicant(s) prior to the meeting if so desired.

8. In accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 2.30 “Commissions, Boards and Committees: General Provisions”, it shall be the City Council’s policy to select for appointment the candidates who received three affirmative votes by the City Council. In the case where a candidate does not receive three affirmative votes, the Council may revote or direct the City Clerk to re-advertise the vacancy.

9. When there are open vacancies for City Council advisory committees, other than Planning Commission or Design Review Board, the City Clerk will bring forward to the City Council the names of the candidates, the number of vacancies, and the liaison recommendation(s).

The City Council will then vote on the recommendation to fill the vacancies. When the Council liaisons to a committee agree on a recommendation for appointment, the item will be included on the consent calendar. When the Council liaisons to a committee do not agree on the recommendation for appointment, the item will be brought forward as a Council Business item as described in Section B(4) of this policy.

10. If the spouse or significant other of a City Council member is an applicant to fill a vacancy on an advisory committee, the City Council member must recuse themselves from voting on that appointment.

C. Council Appointments to the Design Review Board and Planning Commission

1. The City Council shall make appointments to the Planning Commission and Design Review Board in accordance with the membership requirements of Chapter 2.34 “Planning Commission” and 2.38 “Design Review Board” of the Del Mar Municipal Code, respectively.

2. It shall be the policy of the City Council to hold interviews for appointments to the Planning Commission and Design Review Board only when applications received for such commission or board exceed the number of vacancies. 12 April 4, 2022 Item 12

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
200

CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY

COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND

COMMISSIONS
DATE REVISED: 1/10/2022
BY RESOLUTION: 2022-07
PAGES: PAGE 3 OF 6

3. Interviews shall be public and televised as part of the City Council meeting.

4. If, by the application deadline, the number of applications received by the City for such board or commission equals or is less than the number of vacancies, then there shall be an automatic extension of time to accept applications.

5. Prior to the City Council meeting where the Council will vote on an appointment, an un-redacted copy of all qualified Citizen Interest Forms will be provided to the full City Council in order to allow the full Council to review applicant information and contact interested applicant(s) prior to the meeting if so desired.

6. In accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 2.30 “Commissions, Boards and Committees: General Provisions”, it shall be the City Council’s policy to select for appointment the candidates who received three affirmative votes by the City Council. In the case where a candidate does not receive three affirmative votes, the Council may re-vote or direct the City Clerk to re-advertise the vacancy.

7. When there are advertised vacancies for Planning Commission or Design Review Board, the City Clerk will bring forward to the City Council the names of the candidates and the number of vacancies. After interviewing candidates in a public forum, the City Council will vote on the candidates to fill the vacancies. The City Clerk will read aloud the vote of each Council member.

8. If the spouse or significant other of a City Council member is an applicant to fill a vacancy on the Planning Commission or the Design Review Board, the City Council member must recuse themselves from voting on that appointment.Because of conflicts of interest which might exist, or which might give the appearance to the public of existing, and in order to preserve public confidence in the City’s vital planning processes and avoid questions of fairness and bias, prejudice or influence, the immediate family member, of a City Council member, Design Review Board Member or Planning Commissioner may not serve or be appointed to serve simultaneously on the Design Review Board or Planning Commission. For purposes of this policy, immediate family member is defined as an individual’s parent, child, spouse, significant other, or sibling living in the same household.

8.9. In accordance with Section C(8) of this policy, should an immediate family member of a Design Review Board Member or Planning Commissioner be elected to serve on the City Council, said Board Member or Commissioner shall be required to resign from their position no later than the day prior to the day the City Council member’s term of office commences.
13 April 4, 2022 Item 12

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
200

CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY

COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND

COMMISSIONS
DATE REVISED: 1/10/2022
BY RESOLUTION: 2022-07
PAGES: PAGE 4 OF 6
D. City Advisory Committee Membership Categories

1. Subject to the membership limits set forth in Section E(6) of this policy, the City Council may designate seat(s) for ex-officio members in a committee’s charter. Exofficio members are non-voting subject matter experts who may be residents or nonresidents.

2. Subject to the membership limits set forth in Section E(6) of this policy, the City Council may designate membership categories for business representatives in a committee’s charter. Business representatives are business owners or operators whose business has a physical entity within the City of Del Mar and who have a current City of Del Mar business license.

E. Concurrent Committee Assignments, Term Limits and Length, Membership Size and Rotation of Chair and Vice Chair

1. It shall be the policy of the City Council to limit the number of concurrent appointments that any one individual has to City Council advisory committees, Design Review Board, and Planning Commission. The limit of concurrent appointments shall be two. If an individual has two concurrent appointments, they will not be eligible to serve on ad hoc committees, except in special circumstances as determined by the Council or Council liaisons.

2. The number of consecutive terms an individual may serve on a committee is two, as further described in Section E(5) below. However, the City Council has the flexibility to make an exception if they feel it is to the benefit of the committee to re-appoint an individual for a third term. Committee members who would like to continue to serve another term once their appointed term has expired must re-apply by filing a Citizen Interest Form prior to the advertised deadline for applications. Former committee members must wait one year from the expiration of their second consecutive term before being appointed to the same committee.

3. The term length for all City Council advisory committees shall be three years. Terms will expire on the last day of the month.

4. The term length for voting members of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board shall be four years, in accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code Sections

2.34.020 and 2.38.020, respectively. The term length for ex-officio members on the Design Review Board shall be two years, in accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code Section 2.38.020.
14 April 4, 2022 Item 12

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
200

CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY

COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND

COMMISSIONS
DATE REVISED: 1/10/2022
BY RESOLUTION: 2022-07
PAGES: PAGE 5 OF 6

5. In order to ensure that terms remain appropriately staggered, individuals appointed to fill an unexpired vacancy shall finish the remainder of the term of the vacating committee member. If the balance of the vacant term is less than six (6) months, it shall not count as a term towards the two-consecutive-term limit.

6. All City advisory committees have a maximum committee membership of seven (7) to nine (9) total members, including ex-officio members, at the recommendation of the committee’s Council liaisons and approval of the full City Council. If a committee membership size is to be reduced via attrition, attrition shall not affect members who complete their first term and are eligible and wiling to serve a second term. However, such members must be recommended for reappointment by the committee’s Council liaisons, and their reappointment shall be confirmed by the full Council at a Council meeting.

7. It shall be the policy of the City Council that the members of each advisory committee appoint a chair, vice chair and secretary at the last meeting of the calendar year, with the new chair serving at the first meeting of the new year, and that the these positions rotate annually among all the committee members. It is recommended that the vice chair assist with committee responsibilities and provide for a succession plan for chairing the committee. In the event a committee does not have volunteers to serve as chair and vice chair, then the committee has the flexibility to allow consecutive appointmentsto the chair/vice chair or secretary positions, i.e. rotation of such positions among the members is not required if there are no volunteers to serve in those positions.

At the discretion of the committee, the vice chair and secretary positions may be filled by the same committee member.

8. It shall be the policy of the City Council that the members of the Design Review Board and Planning Commission appoint a chair and vice chair at the last meeting of the calendar year, with the new chair serving at the first meeting of the new year, and that the these positions should rotate annually among all the members. The functions of a secretary for the Design Review Board and Planning Commission, such as preparing minutes, will be managed by City staff.

F. Incumbents to Serve Until New Appointments Confirmed It shall be the policy of the City Council to allow an incumbent on a City Council advisory committee, Design Review Board, or Planning Commission, whose term has expired to continue to officially serve until the vacancy is filled or three months has passed, whichever occurs sooner.

G. Attendance Policy for Boards, Commissions, and Committees 15 April 4, 2022 Item 12

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
200

CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY

COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND

COMMISSIONS
DATE REVISED: 1/10/2022
BY RESOLUTION: 2022-07
PAGES: PAGE 6 OF 6
In accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 2.30, if a member of a City advisory committee, Design Review Board, or Planning Commission is absent from three regular, adjourned, or special meetings within a 12-month period without cause, the term of said member is automatically vacated. Council liaisons to the commission, board, or committee shall determine whether the absence was for cause. If an advisory committee, which does not include the Design Review Board or Planning Commission, does not have two Council liaisons, then the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor shall act as liaisons to that commission, board, or committee for this purpose. If the liaisons do not agree about whether the absences were without cause so as to warrant removal, the item will be presented to the full City Council to make the determination.

H. Formation and Dissolution of Boards, Commissions, and Committees

1. New committees must be formed by Resolution of the City Council and must include a committee charter detailing, the committee mission/purpose, type of committee (standing or ad-hoc), membership requirements, conflict of interest requirements, and open meeting requirements.

2. If the newly formed committee is an ad-hoc committee, the Resolution and charter should include a sunset date. The sunset date can be extended by Council action, if necessary.

3. Committees may be dissolved by Resolution of the City Council at any time or during the annual review of the City Council Local Appointments. Ad hoc committees shall automatically be dissolved on their sunset date unless extended in advance by the City Council.

I. City Council Review of City Board, Commission, and Committee System At least every four (4) years the City Council shall establish a subcommittee or alternative process to review the City’s boards, commission and committee system to provide recommendations to improve committee efficiencies to the City Council. However, the City Council may, in its discretion, elect to review the City’s boards, commission and committee system outside of the four (4) year review as it deems necessary. 16 April 4, 2022 Item 12