Del Mar City Council
April 4, 2022

Table of Contents
2022-4-4 Regular Meeting Agenda
Item 1 - MQ Oversight Committee Presentation
Item 2 - Meeting Minutes
Item 3 - List of Demands
Item 5 - AB361 Remote Meetings
Item 6 - DM Foundation Art Plaque Donation
Item 7 - 25th and 17th Street Door Replacement
Item 8 - Advisory Committee Work Plan Policy
Item 9 - 2023 TransNet Local Streets and Roads
Item 10 - Appeal of DRB for DRB21-018
Item 11 - Sign Code Amendment Update
Item 12 - Amendments to Policy 200
2 8
17 27
47 52
55 95
102
109
349
360
Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda

VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us Civility Works: The Del Mar Code of Civil Discourse: Together we will promote inclusion; listen to understand; show respect; be clear and fair; and focus on the issue.

Remote Regular Meeting

VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY
Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:30 PM
In the interest of public health, and consistent with the provisions of Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361) and related resolutions adopted by the Del Mar City Council, the City of Del Mar is temporarily taking actions to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic by holding City Council Meetings electronically or by teleconference. This is not an in-person meeting.

Public Participation/Comment
Members of the public can participate in the meeting by either submitting a written red dot comment via email to
[email protected] or by speaking live using the Zoom link and/or dial-in information provided below. The deadline to submit written comments is 12 p.m. on the day of the meeting and the subject line of your email should clearly state the agenda item you are commenting on. Those wishing to comment live should join the Zoom meeting when the item(s) they wish to speak on is announced or at the meeting start time for items not on the agenda.

Zoom Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84790910014
Phone: (669) 900-6833
Meeting ID: 847 9091 0014
While registration is not required, staff recommends members of the public submit an optional tele-comment request form (www.delmar.ca.us/telecomment) to assist with speaker
management during the meeting. For more information please visit: www.delmar.ca.us/publiccomment.

Viewing the Meeting and Access to Agenda Materials
Members of the public can watch the meeting live on the City’s website at: http://delmar.12milesout.com/Video/Live and on Cable TV Spectrum Ch. 24, AT&T Ch. 99 starting at 4:30 PM.

Agenda materials and communications from the public on agenda items, “Red Dots”, are available on the City’s website: http://www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter and a hard copy of the agenda materials are available at the Del Mar Library during their business hours.

Special Needs: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate remotely in this meeting, please contact the Administrative Services Department via email at [email protected] or by calling (858) 755-9313, preferably at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting if possible.

Dwight Worden
Mayor
Tracy Martinez
Deputy Mayor
Dave Druker
Council Member
Terry Gaasterland
Council Member
Dan Quirk
Council Member
Ashley Jones
City Manager
Leslie E. Devaney
City Attorney
Sarah Krietor
Acting City Clerk
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting April 4, 2022
Agenda Page 2
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
II. CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Public oral communications will take place shortly after the start of the meeting. Those wishing to comment on any matter not on the agenda may join the meeting at 4:30 PM using the Zoom link and dial-in information: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84790910014; Phone: (669) 900-6833; Meeting ID: 847 9091 0014.

V. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
VI. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
VII. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
VIII. PRESENTATIONS

1. Measure Q Citizen Oversight Committee Presentation
Recommended Action: Receive and File
Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-5
IX. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the City Council, staff, or the public so requests, in which event, the item will be considered separately.

2. Approval of Minutes: March 9, 2022 Special Meeting, March 21, 2022 Regular and Special Meeting
Recommended Action: Approve Minutes.

Reference: Clerk’s Minutes Book

3. Ratification of List of Demands, dated April 4, 2022 Recommended Action: Ratify the List of Demands.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 201-3
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting April 4, 2022
Agenda Page 3
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us

4. Waiver of Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
Recommended Action: Waive Reading of Ordinances.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-4

5. Continuation of Remote Public Meetings in Compliance with Government Code Section 54953 (Assembly Bill 361)
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) making the finding required by Government Code 54953 related to Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361) to continue with remote public meetings for the next thirty (30) days during the local emergency declared in response to the COVID-19 global pandemic.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-7

6. Acceptance of a Donation from the Del Mar Foundation of Art Name Plaques for the James Hubbell Sculpture located at the Del Mar Library Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council accept a donation from the Del Mar Foundation of two name plaques identifying the James Hubbell sculpture, entitled A River of Time, located at the Del Mar Library.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1202-5

7. Award of Construction Contracts for 25th Street Lifeguard Tower and 17th Street Beach Safety Center Door Replacement Projects
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Approve a construction contract with Dave A. Ward for the 25th Street Lifeguard Tower Exterior Door Replacement Project (Attachment A); 2) Approve a construction contract with Superior Door Systems, Inc. for the 17th Street Beach Safety Center Garage Door Replacement Project (Attachment B); and 3) Authorize the City Manager to execute the contracts and any contract changes that are necessary to complete the identified work.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 406-1

8. Proposed City Council Policy Related to Advisory Committee Work Plans Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council review the proposed City Council Policy 204 Advisory Committee Work Plans (Exhibit A to Attachment A) and adopt the Resolution (Attachment A) approving the Policy.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 101-2
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting April 4, 2022
Agenda Page 4
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us X. PUBLIC HEARINGS

9. Resolution Adopting the TransNet Local Streets and Roads Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2022-2023 through 2026-2027
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) adopting the TransNet Local Streets and Roads Program of Projects of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2022-2023 through 2026-2027.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1506-1
XI. COUNCIL MEETING RECESS
XII. CITY COUNCIL OTHER BUSINESS

10. Initial Consideration of an Appeal of the Design Review Board’s Approval of Design Review Permit (DRB21-018), Land Conservation Permit (LC21-008), and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 21-012)
Project Applicants and Property Owners: Matthew and Chelsea Ziskin Project Appellants: Nigel Hook and Janet Wilson
Project Location: 624 8th Street (APN: 300-252-14-00)
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Design Review Board’s approval of applications DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 and not set the appeal for a de novo hearing.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 301-5

11. Update Regarding Potential Revisions to City Campaign and Temporary Signage Regulations
Recommended Action: 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.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 303-2
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting April 4, 2022
Agenda Page 5
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us

12. Amendment to City Council Policy 200 Pertaining to the Service of Significant Others
Recommended Action: 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.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 101-2
XIII. REGIONAL ORGANIZATION REPORTS
A Councilmember assigned as a liaison to a regional organization may make a written or oral report. State law precludes the Council from commenting on, discussing, or acting on a report unless the item of business within the report is described in the agenda.

A. 22nd District Agricultural Association Community Relations Committee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
B. Clean Energy Alliance JPA (CEA) Board of Directors (Druker/Worden) C. CSA-17 Ambulance District Advisory Board (Martinez/Druker) D. Fire Governance Board, Solana Beach/Del Mar/Encinitas (Druker/Martinez) E. League of California Cities – San Diego Chapter (Worden/Martinez) F. North County Transit District (NCTD) (Quirk/Gaasterland/Druker) G. Regional Solid Waste Association (Worden/Quirk)
H. San Diego Association of Governments Board (SANDAG)
(Gaasterland/Druker/Quirk)
I. SANDAG Borders Committee (Druker)
J. SANDAG Regional Planning Committee (Gaasterland)
K. SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Working Group (Worden/Gaasterland) L. San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater JPA Advisory Committee to San Diego (Quirk/Bride)
M. San Dieguito River Valley Regional Open Space Park JPA –Executive Committee (Worden/Quirk)
N. Other Regional Organization Reports
XIV. COUNCIL COMMITTEES/SUBCOMMITTEES/COMMUNITY ORG REPORTS A Councilmember assigned as a liaison to a City Committee, Council Subcommittee OR Community Organization may make a written or oral report. State law precludes the Council from commenting on, discussing, or acting on a report, unless the item of business within the report is described in this agenda.

A. Ad-Hoc Referendum Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Druker)
B. Arts Advisory Committee (Druker/Worden)
C. Clean Water Rate Project (Druker, Quirk)
D. Del Mar Community Connections (Martinez/Quirk)
E. Del Mar Village Association (Druker/Quirk)
F. Finance Committee (Gaasterland/Quirk)
G. Housing Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting April 4, 2022
Agenda Page 6
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us H. Human Resources Subcommittee (Druker/Worden)
I. Legislative Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Druker)
J. Long-Term Rail Relocation Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Druker) K. Measure Q Citizen Oversight Committee (Druker/Quirk) L. Parks and Recreation Committee (Druker/Worden)
M. Planning Process Subcommittee (Druker/Gaasterland)
N. Safe Rail Crossing and Bluff Stabilization Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Druker) O. Lagoon Committee (Quirk/Worden)
P. Sea-Level Rise Adaptation Plan Implementation Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
Q. Shores Advisory Committee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
R. Solid Waste Procurement Services Ad-Hoc Subcommittee (Quirk/Worden) S. Sustainability Advisory Committee (DrukerWorden)
T. Traffic and Parking Advisory Committee (Martinez/Worden) U. Undergrounding Project Advisory Committee (Gaasterland/Quirk) V. Other Committee-Subcommittee Reports
XV. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS
The following topics/items are tentatively planned for upcoming agendas. The title, wording, and planned date for these items are subject to change. Final agendas are posted at City Hall 72 hours in advance of the meetings and are also posted on our web site with the accompanying staff report. Please watch our web site:
www.delmar.ca.us for City Council Agendas.

April 18, 2022
Authorization of Task Orders for Planning Studies to Implement Housing Element (First Amendment to Phase I and New Phase II Agreements)
Master License Agreements with Crown Castle & AT&T for Small Cell Wireless Facilities Master License Agreements with Crown Castle & AT&T for Master License Agreements with Crown Castle & AT&T for Small Cell Wireless Facilities Small Cell Wireless Facilities Citywide Staffing Plan
Update on Citywide COVID Protocols and Reopening Plan
XVI. CERTIFICATION
I, Sarah Krietor, Acting City Clerk for the City of Del Mar, hereby certify that a copy of this agenda was posted at City Hall on the 30th day of March, 2022, at approximately 4:15 p.m.
___________________________________________ 3/30/2022
Sarah Krietor, Acting City Clerk Date
City of Del Mar
Memorandum
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: April 4, 2022
SUBJECT: Item 1 - Measure Q Citizen Oversight Committee Presentation Item 1 on the City Council meeting Agenda for April 4, 2022, is a presentation from the Measure Q Citizen Oversight Committee (Oversight Committee) regarding Measure Q Transactions for FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22.

The Oversight Committee was created by the City Council in 2017 as a requirement of the 2016 voter-approved Measure Q one-percent transaction and use tax. The purpose of the Oversight Committee is to review, provide oversight, and report annually to the City Council on the revenue and expenditure of Measure Q funds. The Oversight Committee is not responsible for providing input on how Measure Q funds will be spent.

Attachment: Measure Q Citizen Oversight Committee Presentation 1 April 4, 2022 Item 01

MEASURE Q CITIZEN OVERSIGHT

COMMITTEE REPORT
FY 2020-2021 AND
FY 2021-2022
April 4, 2022
2 April 4, 2022 Item 01

MEASURE Q OVERVIEW
• Measure Q passed on November 8, 2016
• 1% sales tax for purpose of providing general city services and infrastructure projects • City Council committed to use Measure Q funds for:
• Downtown Streetscape Project
• Shores Park Development
• Citywide Utility Undergrounding
• Measure Q Citizen Oversight Committee established
• Verify revenues are properly set aside
• Verify expenditures are for approved projects and accurately tracked • Current Committee Members
• Alan Lonbom, Chair; Steven McDowell, Vice Chair; Tom McGreal, Secretary, and Michael Chiappetta • Current Council Liaisons
• Dave Druker and Dan Quirk
3 April 4, 2022 Item 01

MEASURE Q REVENUES
Period FY2016-17 FY2017-18 FY2018-19 FY2019-20 FY2020-21 TOTAL 3rd Quarter $ - $937,163 $962,688 $875,978 $573,348 $3,349,177 4th Quarter - 636,364 623,210 620,158 504,031 2,383,763 1st Quarter - 435,072 476,618 323,015 523,066 1,757,771 2nd Quarter 483,227 642,182 730,845 435,016 684,959 2,976,229 Accrual 251,117 67,209 41,970 26,139 20,049 406,484
Earned Interest - - 27,983 35,401 33,670 97,054
Transfers - - 149,219 4,567 778 154,564
Total Revenue $734,344 $2,717,990 $3,012,533 $2,320,274 $2,339,901 $11,125,042 4 April 4, 2022 Item 01

MEASURE Q EXPENDITURES

PROJECT FY
2016-17
FY
2017-18
FY
2018-19
FY
2019-20
FY
2020-21
TOTAL
Streetscape $ - $- $3,815,990 $3,115,661* $- $6,931,651 Shores Park - - - 767 11,402 12,169
Undergrounding - - 286,373 240,269 137,510 664,152
Roadway & Sidewalks - - - - - -
Miscellaneous 6,648 - - - - 6,648
Loan transfers - - - - - -
Admin fees - - 154,603 53,259 207,862
Total Expenditures $6,648 $- $4,102,363 $3,511,300 $202,171 $7,822,482 *Includes transfer to the General Fund of $502,160 for Streetscape project expenditures. 5 April 4, 2022 Item 01

MEASURE Q FUND BALANCE

FISCAL YEAR ENDING FUND BALANCE
2016-2017 $727,696
2017-2018 3,445,686
2018-2019 2,355,856
2019-2020 1,164,830
2020-2021 3,302,560
6 April 4, 2022 Item 01

MEASURE Q COMMITTEE APPROACH

IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL KEY RISKS
• Revenues – Potential key risks
• Measure Q revenue misstated by Taxing Authority
• Measure Q revenues applied to wrong account
• Expenditures – Potential key risks
• Measure Q funds used for non-City Council approved projects • Measure Q project expenditures not accurately tracked • Measure Q internal costs applied on inappropriate methodology • Other Potential key risks
• Measure Q loaned funds not repaid
7 April 4, 2022 Item 01

MEASURE Q COMMITTEE PROCEDURES

PROCEDURES TO ADDRESS IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL KEY RISKS
• Scope of work – FY 2021 and FY 2022 Measure Q reporting periods • Revenues
• Compared historical trends/relationship to general sales tax revenues • Reconciled revenue reports to Revenue Summary
• Traced randomly selected periods to supporting source documents • Expenditures
• Reconciled expenditure reports to Expenditure Summary • Traced randomly selected transactions to supporting source documents • Reviewed process for approvals authorizing payment
• Reviewed internal personnel costs charged to Measure Q • Transfers
• Reviewed transfer activity
8 April 4, 2022 Item 01

MEASURE Q COMMITTEE CONCLUSIONS
• Revenues
• Measure Q revenues reasonable in relation to general sales tax revenues • Detailed selection of revenue agreed with supporting source documents • Expenditure analysis
• Detailed selection of expenditure agreed with supporting transaction documents and were for City Council authorized Measure Q projects
• Staff’s process for review and approval of expenditures appear appropriate • Method used to apply internal personnel costs charged to Measure Q appear appropriate and reasonable
• Transfers
• The transfer of $502,160 to the General Fund for Streetscape costs was authorized by the City Council on June 17, 2020
• No other significant transfers in or out of Measure Q were noted during the reporting periods
9 April 4, 2022 Item 01

DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL
2022 GOAL SETTING WORKSHOP

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 9, 2022
Via Teleconference
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Worden called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Dwight Worden; Deputy Mayor Tracy Martinez; Councilmembers Dave Druker, Terry Gaasterland, and Dan Quirk

PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Worden opened the item to public comment and the follow people spoke:
1) Ann Feeney
2) Terance Kopanski
3) Felise Levine
4) Joe Sullivan – Due to technical difficulties experienced by Mr. Sullivan, his Red Dot submission was summarized for the record by Mayor Worden.

Mayor Worden closed the item to public comment.

CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS
ITEM 1: 2022 CITY COUNCIL GOAL SETTING WORKSHOP (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-1) An introduction and Goal Setting Workshop (Workshop) overview were provided by City Manager Ashley Jones. Finance Manager/Treasurer Monica Molina provided a brief overview of the City’s Mid-Year Financial Report and reserve projections through FY 2022-23.

Department Work Plan Overviews
City Manager Jones presented the Administrative Services Department daily operations and work plan items. Council questions focused on whether the A/P streamline and researching a new accounting system could take place simultaneously; whether the City is absorbing credit card fees for parking meters; and whether implementing e-TRAKIT will save staff time.

Assistant City Manager Kristen Crane presented the City Manager Office’s daily operations and work plan items. City Council questions focused on clarification of the hazards analyzed in the Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and the effective date of the City’s FEMA map; location of pedestrian crossing related to the double tracking program; and clarification on the telecommunication charter agreements.

Community Services Director/Lifeguard Chief Jon Edelbrock presented the Community Services Department daily operations and work plan items. City Council questions focused on credit card fees for parking citations; whether the junior lifeguard program is profitable; whether scholarships for underprivileged kids are available for the junior lifeguard program; whether the City contracted out for the junior lifeguard program in the past; whether a Coastal Development Permit is required for the parking bail schedule update; and status of the Redflex parking enforcement program. 1 April 4, 2022 Item 02

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
March 9, 2022

Planning & Community Development Director Karen Brindley presented the Planning & Community Development Department daily operations and work plan items. City Council questions focused on timing for completing the digitization archiving project; accessory dwelling unit (ADU) amnesty program; clarification on tracking for short-term rentals (STRs); clarification that the up zoning of the public utility zone excludes Shores Park; and whether condo conversions and short-term rentals are included in the work plan related to housing element implementation and/or the referendum withdrawal.

Public Works Director Joe Bride presented the Public Works Department daily operations and work plan items. City Council questions focused on budget resources for maintenance of the library; whether the City has considered joining San Elijo Joint Powers Authority (JPA) as a voting member; amounts and use of reclaimed water from San Elijo JPA; clarification on the cost estimate for the Hoska Alley development and paving; clarification on the location of the existing drainage on Hoska Alley; whether the City has sent flows to the Metro Wastewater JPA; and clarification on when the plastic on the Jimmy Durante bluff will be removed.

COUNCIL RECESS
The City Council took a lunch recess from 12:17 p.m. - 12:47 p.m.

City Council discussed specific newly identified Planning & Community Development Department potential work plan items. City Council questions and discussion focused on whether the Housing Acceleration Program grant can be used for housing feasibility studies that are currently underway; desire for City Council to receive a status update on short-term rentals. City Council consensus was to include the newly identified Planning items in the City’s Work Plan as follows: Housing Acceleration Program grant management (Tier 1) (FY2021-22/FY2022-23); ADU amnesty program (Tier 2)(FY2022-23); Tiny house regulations (Tier 2) (FY2022-23); and Short term rental regulations/preservation of existing housing stock (Tier 2) (FY 2023-24).

Council discussed specific newly identified Public Works Department work plan items. Council questions and discussion focused on whether traffic light computers could be programed to flash red when the power is restored following an outage; desire to prioritize the design ($50,000) and planning phase of the Hoska Alley development as a Tier 1 item; clarification on whether the 20th street lifeguard tower driveway can be used by the public; explanation on why concrete is needed for the 20th Street Lifeguard Tower driveway; whether the Del Mar Garden Club could beautify the 20th Street Lifeguard Tower driveway project area and desire to put the project through a design process; clarification on the location of the seawall at 29th Street; timeline for needing to replace the 20th Street Lifeguard Tower; and whether grant funding is available for the traffic signal backup power system.

City Council consensus was to include the following items in the City’s work plan as follows: Traffic signal back up power system (Tier 1) (FY2022-23/FY2023-24); Termination or amendment of City of San Diego Wastewater Transportation and Disposal Agreements (Tier 1) (FY 2021-22/FY 2022- 23); Design of Hoska Alley improvements (cost estimate $50,000) (Tier 1) (FY2022-23); and begin a design process for 20th Street Lifeguard Tower driveway area, with staff to return to City Council with design options including a combination of hardscape and landscape/vegetation for consideration (Tier 2) (FY 2022-2023). The Council deferred the pickleball pilot study and the completion of the 29th Street seawall and beach access project to be considered as potential work plan items during a future goal setting process.
2 April 4, 2022 Item 02

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
March 9, 2022

City Council-identified Potential Work Plan Items
City Councilmembers presented their proposed work plan “wish list” items for consideration. City Council discussed the items and the consensus was not to proceed with the following items at this time: Improve NCTD parking lot at Viewpoint & paint NCTD Building on Jimmy Durante Blvd. (both require NCTD permission); Reconsideration of expedited design of Riverpath Phase 3; Policy on use of outside lawyers; conduct a community survey (last survey completed in 2015); funding for a Sparks Fellow to help with Climate Action Plan/Sustainability workplan items; and Ghost Gun prohibition (following County and Encinitas models).

Council consensus was to consider or proceed with the following Council initiated items as described below.

Trees Scenic Views and Sunlight (TSVS) Ordinance Update: Council consensus was for staff to return to City Council with additional information and estimates regarding the work effort, time, and estimated cost that would be involved in amending the TSVS Ordinance, including adding City trees, for consideration and potential inclusion in a future work plan. In the short term, staff will look into whether the City can address the issues raised in the red dots and by City Council regarding City trees impeding on private views and what would be involved with doing so.

Reengagement on Short Term Rental (STR) Regulations: City Council consensus was to include reengagement on short-term rentals in the work plan for FY 2023-2024, with the work effort anticipated to begin in or around July 2023.

Reevaluate City’s Ability to Collect a Portion of Fairground Admission Fees: City Council consensus was to refer this item to the City Attorney for clarification on the prior appellant court decisions and any recent legislative changes in this area.

Consider Policy Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units to be used for Housing Only: City Council consensus was for Planning & Community Development staff to consult with the City Attorney’s Office on this item as part of the upcoming ADU ordinance amendment.

Restart Underground Project Advisory Committee (UPAC): City Council consensus was for UPAC liaisons, Councilmembers Gaasterland and Quirk, to return to City Council with any recommended charter revisions and a plan for reengaging UPAC after completion of the Tewa project and prior to projects 1A/X1A.

Revisions to Oversized Vehicle Ordinance: City Council consensus was for staff to research additional information related to oversized vehicle enforcement issues and return to City Council for additional direction.

Update to Climate Action Plan and Adoption of a Building Electrification Ordinance: City Council consensus was to refer these items to the Sustainability Advisory Committee (SAC) to further vet out the staff time and City resources involved and to include an analysis of the measurable environmental impact of these proposed work plan items.

Adoption of an Ordinance Allowing for Cannabis and Cannabidiol (CBD) Retail Sales/Stores: City Council consensus was for staff to return to the City Council with information about what would be involved in amending the City’s Code to allow for CBD retail sales and they deferred to the City Manager on the timing for doing so based on staff capacity. 3 April 4, 2022 Item 02

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
March 9, 2022

Complete Request for Qualifications (RFQ) Process for City Attorney/Legal Services: City Council consensus was for the City Manager to work with the City Council to start the RFQ process at the end of 2022/beginning of 2023 and they deferred to the City Manager’s judgment on the timing.

Median Improvements: City Council consensus was for staff to develop a plan to improve the City’s medians over time, starting with the median area that has already been previously designed and approved by DRB located in the North Beach area, and return to the City Council with more information and recommendations.

Advisory Committee Potential Work Plan Items
Management Analyst/Acting City Clerk Krietor provided a brief presentation on the Advisory Committee proposed work plan items. City Council consensus was to authorize proposed committee work plan items that have a direct nexus to City operational work plan items or approved special or Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects. It was also the consensus of the Council that any proposed committee work plan items that are not related to the City’s current approved work plan, can be done on a volunteer basis by committee members, but they will not be allocated staff time or financial resources. The Council also directed staff to work with the Committees Efficiencies Taskforce Mayor Worden and Deputy Mayor Martinez to return at a future meeting with a proposed policy to provide additional clarification on the development of committee work plans.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Worden adjourned the meeting at 2:52 p.m.

Sarah Krietor, Acting City Clerk
4 April 4, 2022 Item 02

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 2022 – VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar California 92014
The minutes set forth the actions taken by the City Council on the matters stated. Audio/video recordings of the City Council proceedings are retained for a period of ten years, in accordance with the City's Records Retention Schedule. Audio/video recordings, as well as written materials presented to the City Council, including Red Dots (materials provided to the City Council after the agenda has published), are available on the City’s website at www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter or by contacting the Administrative Services Department at (858) 755-9313.

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Worden called the Regular Meeting to order at 4:31 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Dwight Worden; Deputy Mayor Tracy Martinez; Councilmembers Dave Druker, Terry Gaasterland, and Dan Quirk.

CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT
Assistant City Attorney Barry Shultz reported that there were no recusals or reportable actions for the March 21, 2022 City Council Closed Session meeting.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Deputy Mayor Martinez led the Pledge of Allegiance.

PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.

CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS & COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Worden reported on the Del Mar Village Association ribbon cutting events held on March 12, 2022, at the Darshan Bakery, An’s Hatmakers, and Tulsi; his meeting with the Governor’s office staff where he discussed the City’s goals, including establishing affordable housing at the Fairgrounds; City Council Goals & Priorities Workshop held on March 9, 2022; and sand replenishment efforts at Moonlight Beach in Encinitas.

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Ashley Jones reported on North Coastal Sheriff’s Community Park Day planned for Sunday, April 3, 2022, and thanked the Friends of the Powerhouse for holding a fundraising event for the Tot Lot Renovation Project on March 11, 2022.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Acting City Clerk Sarah Krietor read the titles of the items included on the Consent Calendar. There were no public speakers for the consent calendar items. 5 April 4, 2022 Item 02
City Council Regular Minutes
March 21, 2022

IT WAS MOVED BY DEPUTY MAYOR MARTINEZ, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GAASTERLAND TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1 THROUGH 3, 5, 7 THROUGH 11. (VOTE 5-0)
Ayes: Mayor Worden, Deputy Mayor Martinez, and Councilmembers Druker, Gaasterland and Quirk; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.

ITEM 1: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MARCH 7, 2022 REGULAR AND SPECIAL MEETING (CLERK’S MINUTES BOOK)
Council approved the minutes, on consent.

ITEM 2: RATIFICATION OF LIST OF DEMANDS, DATED MARCH 21, 2022 (CLERK’S FILE NO. 201-3)
Council approved the list of demands, on consent.

ITEM 3: WAIVER OF READING OF ORDINANCES ON AGENDA (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-4) Council waived the reading of ordinances, on consent.

ITEM 4: SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT COASTAL COMMISSION’S MODIFICATIONS TO THE NORTH COMMERCIAL/PROFESSIONAL

COMMERCIAL (NC/PC) LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT (LCPA) (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-4, 401-9, 305-2)
Deputy Mayor Martinez and Councilmember Quirk were recused for the item due to living within 500 feet of the subject matter of the discussion. Principal Planner Amanda Lee addressed the North County Transit District red dot letters.

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER DRUKER, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER GAASTERLAND TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 987, “AN ORDINANCE

OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING DEL MAR MUNICIPAL CODE (DMMC) CHAPTER 30.24 (NORTH COMMERCIAL ZONE) AS ADOPTED BY PROSPECTIVE ORDINANCE NO. 973; AMENDING DMMC CHAPTER 30.25 (PROFESSIONAL COMMERCIAL ZONE) AS ADOPTED BY PROSPECTIVE ORDINANCE NO. 971; AMENDING THE CITY’S CERTIFIED LOCAL COASTAL

PROGRAM (LCP) BY ADDING A NEW EXHIBIT TO THE LCP LAND USE PLAN TITLED “LOCATIONS IN NC ZONE WHERE MULTIPLE DWELLING UNIT DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED”; AMENDING THE “LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS/ALLOWED USES” LIST IN THE LCP LAND USE PLAN MAP; AND AMENDING THE “ZONE DESIGNATIONS/ALLOWED USES” LIST IN THE LCP

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ALL RELATING TO AMENDMENTS REQUIRED BY THE

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION (CCC) AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR

THE CITY TO OBTAIN FINAL CERTIFICATION OF THE SUBMITTED NC/PC LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT (LCPA) IN ORDER FOR ORDINANCES NO. 971 (PC ZONE) AND NO. 973 (NC ZONE) TO TAKE EFFECT IN THE CITY OF DEL MAR”. (VOTE 3-0 WITH COUNCILMEMBER QUIRK AND DEPUTY MAYOR MARTINEZ RECUSED DUE TO LIVING WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE AREA AFFECTED.) 6 April 4, 2022 Item 02
City Council Regular Minutes
March 21, 2022

Ayes: Mayor Worden, and Councilmembers Druker and Gaasterland; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: Deputy Mayor Martinez and Councilmember Quirk.

ITEM 5: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT HOUSING ACCELERATION GRANT FUNDS (CLERK’S FILE NO. 201-13, 303-1, 1506-1)
Council adopted resolution 2022-20, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING

ACCELERATION GRANT FUNDS FROM THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG) FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF VARIOUS 6TH CYCLE

HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS RELATING TO SMART GROWTH DURING THE TIMEFRAME OF APRIL 2022 THROUGH JUNE 2023”, and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract, on consent.

ITEM 6: AUTHORIZATION FOR SUBMITTAL OF THE 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT (CLERK’S FILE NO. 303-1, 304-7)
The item was pulled from the consent calendar for consideration. A presentation was provided by Associate Planner Adriana Jaramishian and Principal Planner Amanda Lee was available to answer questions.

City Council questions focused on the timing for the Watermark project; whether moderate units can be counted as above moderate units; whether the City collects data from Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) applicants; whether the ADU amnesty program will produce additional units that will count towards the City’s RHNA obligation; and clarification on the outreach plan for property owners in the NC/PC Zone related to the ordinance.

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER DRUKER, SECONDED BY

COUNCILMEMBER GAASTERLAND TO AUTHORIZE SUBMITTAL TO THE STATE

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (HCD) AND THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH BY THE APRIL 1, 2022 DEADLINE. (VOTE 5-0)
Ayes: Mayor Worden, Deputy Mayor Martinez, and Councilmembers Druker, Gaasterland and Quirk; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.

ITEM 7: SUSTAINABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-5)
Council appointed Valerie Dufort-Roy and Daria Flores to the Committee as voting members to serve a full three-year term starting March 21, 2022 and ending on March 31, 2025; appointed Strowbridge Watson to the Committee as a non-voting, ex-officio member to serve a full three-year term starting March 21, 2022 and ending on March 31, 2025; and reappointed Nilmini Silva-Send to the Committee as a non-voting, ex-officio member to serve a full three-year term starting May 1, 2022 and ending on May 31, 2025, on consent.

ITEM 8: PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-5) Council appointed Arlene Prater as a voting member to the Committee to serve a full threeyear term starting March 21, 2022 and ending on March 31, 2025, on consent. 7 April 4, 2022 Item 02
City Council Regular Minutes
March 21, 2022

ITEM 9: FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH DEL MAR BLUE PRINT COMPANY (CLERK’S FILE NO. 406-1)
Council approved the First Amendment to the Agreement between the City of Del Mar and Del Mar Blue Print Company for as-needed printing, publishing, and graphic design services for an additional two-year period ending March 4, 2024; and authorized the City Manager to execute the First Amendment, on consent.

ITEM 10: FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE DEL MAR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 (CLERK’S FILE NO. 406-1)
Council approved the First Amendment to the Agreement with the Del Mar Village Association (DMVA) for FY 2021-22 Economic Development services; and authorized the City Manager to execute the First Amendment, on consent.

ITEM 11: AUTHORIZATION TO APPLY FOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECREATIONAL TRAILS

PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS FOR THE RIVERPATH DEL MAR EXTENSION PROJECT PHASE 3 (CLERK’S FILE NO. 201-13)
Council adopted resolution 2022-21, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION

WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE RECREATIONAL TRAILS PROGRAM”, to supplement the cost of future construction of the Riverpath Del Mar Extension Project Phase 3; and authorized the City Manager to execute the necessary related documents, including the grant application and future agreement, on consent.

CITY COUNCIL OTHER BUSINESS
ITEM 12: APPROVAL OF A 5-YEAR AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AND

THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF FOR GENERAL AND SPECIALIZED LAW ENFORCEMENT AND TRAFFIC SERVICES (CLERK’S FILE NO. 406-1, 1101-7) City Manager Jones introduced the item. A presentation was provided by Assistant City Manager Kristen Crane and Assistant Sheriff Dave Brown. Contract Manager Keith Spears and Sheriff Captain Dustin Lopez were available to answer questions.

Council questions and discussion focused on sheriff presence and contract staffing levels of one deputy and one traffic deputy; clarification on response coverage between Del Mar and neighboring agencies; per household cost of sheriff services for Del Mar as compared to other agencies; clarification on the number of deputies assigned to the City of Solana Beach; whether the City uses Community Services Officers; how the sheriff decides if a deputy or traffic patrol officer will be dispatched; whether sheriff deputies patrol on the beach and/or respond to calls at the beach; clarification on the sheriff reserve program; desire to have the City seal placed on Del Mar sheriff patrol cars; and whether senior volunteer patrol officers could be assigned primarily to Del Mar.

There were no public speakers for the item.
8 April 4, 2022 Item 02
City Council Regular Minutes
March 21, 2022

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER DRUKER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER

GAASTERLAND TO APPROVE A FIVE-YEAR AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

AND THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF FOR GENERAL AND SPECIALIZED LAW

ENFORCEMENT AND TRAFFIC SERVICES, AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT. (VOTE 5-0)
Ayes: Mayor Worden, Deputy Mayor Martinez, and Councilmembers Druker, Gaasterland, and Quirk; Noes: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.

REGIONAL ORGANIZATION AND COUNCIL COMMITTEES/SUBCOMMITTEES/COMMUNITY

ORGANIZATION REPORTS
City Council representatives reported on the Long-term Rail Relocation Subcommittee; Lagoon Committee; Sustainability Advisory Committee; Regional Solid Waste Association; San Dieguito River Valley Regional Open Space Park JPA; and North County Transit District.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Worden adjourned the meeting at 6:15 p.m.

Sarah Krietor, Acting City Clerk
9 April 4, 2022 Item 02

DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 21, 2022
Via Teleconference
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Worden called the meeting to order at 2:30 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Dwight Worden; Deputy Mayor Tracy Martinez; Councilmembers Dave Druker, Terry Gaasterland, and Dan Quirk

CLOSED SESSION
A) Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation
North County Transit District (NCTD)– Verified Petition for Declaratory Order Surface Transportation Board Finance Docket No. 36433
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Reportable Action: None.

B) Conference with Legal Counsel - Significant Exposure to Litigation Number of Cases: Three
Description: 1) Liabilities related to fencing at/near NCTD rails; 2) Liability related to an alleged sewage spill and resulting threat of litigation; and 3) Liability related to the Coastal Connections Study and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(b)
Reportable Action: None.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Worden adjourned the meeting at 4:21 p.m.

Sarah Krietor, Acting City Clerk
10 April 4, 2022 Item 02

Vendor Payment Checks 653,868.68 $
Voids (206.80)
Electronic Fund Transfers (EFT) 162,148.06
Electronic Wires 168,230.54
Total 984,040.48 $
Approved by: Approved by:

Monica Molina Dwight Worden
Finance Manager/Treasurer Mayor
Date: Date:
3/28/2022
Attachments: Check Registers

LIST OF DEMANDS

CITY OF DEL MAR
for
City Council Meeting
April 4, 2022
1 April 4, 2022 Item 03
3/28/2022 12:54:52PM
Replaced Checks Listing
City of Del Mar
apRepChk Page: 1
Bank:

Account:
gunion
2740012145
Orig check Date Voided Check amt EFT Paid to Repl check Date Reason 133858 2/25/2022 2/25/2022 206.80 No THE STATE ARCHITECT DIVISION O 133859 2/25/2022 Check Destroyed Bank total: 206.80
Checks total: 206.80
Page: 1
2 April 4, 2022 Item 03
3 April 4, 2022 Item 03
4 April 4, 2022 Item 03
5 April 4, 2022 Item 03
6 April 4, 2022 Item 03
7 April 4, 2022 Item 03
8 April 4, 2022 Item 03
9 April 4, 2022 Item 03
10 April 4, 2022 Item 03
11 April 4, 2022 Item 03
12 April 4, 2022 Item 03
13 April 4, 2022 Item 03
14 April 4, 2022 Item 03
15 April 4, 2022 Item 03
16 April 4, 2022 Item 03
17 April 4, 2022 Item 03
18 April 4, 2022 Item 03
19 April 4, 2022 Item 03
20 April 4, 2022 Item 03
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: Continuation of Remote Public Meetings in Compliance with Government Code Section 54953 (Assembly Bill 361)
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) making the finding required by Government Code 54953 related to Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361) to continue with remote public meetings for the next thirty (30) days during the local emergency declared in response to the COVID-19 global pandemic.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361), which waives certain provisions of the Brown Act and allows for continued remote public meetings during the pandemic if specific findings are made by the City Council. Under AB 361, in order to hold remote public meetings during the declared state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City Council must adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) making at least one of the two findings: 1) state or local officials have recommended measures to promote social distancing; and/or 2) that meeting in-person would pose an imminent risk to the health and safety of attendees. Additionally, the City Council will need to reevaluate and readopt this Resolution every 30 days, which can be accomplished on the consent agenda.

On October 4, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 2021-45 making the finding that meeting in-person would pose an imminent risk to the health and safety of attendees as the current state and local health orders do not explicitly require or promote social distancing at this time. The City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency every thirty (30) days and has adopted a number of resolutions extending remote public meetings. Most recently, Resolution 2022-18 was adopted March 7, 2022, to continue with remote meetings through April 6, 2022. These resolutions apply to all City public meetings including the City Council, Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and City advisory committees.
1 April 4, 2022 Item 05
City Council Agenda Report
Continuation of Remote Public Meetings in Compliance with AB361 April 4, 2022

In order for the City Council, Planning Commission, Design Review Board and City advisory committees to continue to meet remotely past April 6, 2022, the City Council must reconsider the circumstances of the state of emergency and determined that meeting in-person would directly impact the ability of the members and the public to meet safely in person. As such, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) allowing the City Council, Design Review Board, Planning Commission and City advisory committees to continue to meet remotely for the next thirty (30) days in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 54953 (AB361).

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:

The City Council declared a local emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic on March 14, 2020 and has been meeting remotely since that time. The City Council adopted Resolution 2021-45 on October 4, 2021; Resolution 2021-46 on November 1, 2021; Resolution 2021-49 on November 19, 2021; Resolution 2021-53 on December 13, 2021; Resolution 2022-01 on January 10, 2022; Resolution 2022-11 on February 7, 2022; and Resolution 2022-18 on March 7, 2022, allowing for the continuation of remote public meetings under the provisions established by AB361.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no 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 2021-22.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Resolution Related to AB361 Thirty (30) Day Continuance 2 April 4, 2022 Item 05
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL

MAR, CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953 RELATED TO
ASSEMBLY BILL 361 IN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE USE OF

TELECONFERENCE OR A REMOTE MEETING PLATFORM TO

FACILITATE REMOTE PUBLIC MEETINGS
WHEREAS, there exists the COVID-19 virus, which represents a serious public health threat; and
WHEREAS, on February 14, 2020, the San Diego County Health Officer declared a Local Health Emergency as a result of the COVID-19 virus; which was subsequently ratified by the Board of Supervisors on February 19, 2020; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the State of California declared a State of Emergency as a result of the COVID-19 virus; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the President of the United States declared a national emergency as a result of the COVID-19 virus; and WHEREAS, on March 14, 2020, the City of Del Mar adopted Resolution 2020-12 declaring a local emergency related to COVID-19 and has been meeting remotely since that time in accordance with multiple Executive Orders issued by the Governor waiving certain provisions of the Brown Act; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 361 (AB361) waiving certain provisions of the Brown Act during declared states of emergency and allowing for the continuation of remote public meetings if specific findings are made; and
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 2021-45 making findings in accordance with Assembly Bill 361, thereby waiving specific provisions of the Brown Act in order to continue the use of teleconference or a remote meeting platform to facilitate remote public meetings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency, determined that meeting in person would directly impact the ability of the members and the public to meet safely and adopted Resolution 2021-46 on November 1, 2021; Resolution 2021-49 on November 19, 2021; Resolution 2021-53 on December 13; 2021; Resolution 2022-01 on January 10, 2022; Resolution 2022-11 on February 7, 2022; Resolution 2022-18 on March 7, 2022; and
3 April 4, 2022 Item 05
Resolution No. 2022-XX

WHEREAS, on April 4, 2022, the City Council reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency and determined that meeting in person would directly impact the ability of the members and the public to meet safely.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar that the City of Del Mar may continue to use teleconference or a remote meeting platform for the next thirty (30) days in accordance with AB361 based on the following findings:

1. The City Council has held public meetings during the declared emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic and has determined by a majority vote of the City Council that as a result of the COVID-19 global pandemic, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of members and attendees.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that this resolution applies to the City Council, Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and all City advisory committees.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at the 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
4 April 4, 2022 Item 05
Resolution No. 2022-XX

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
5 April 4, 2022 Item 05
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Beth Murray, Senior Management Analyst
Kristen M. Crane, Assistant City Manager
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: April 4, 2022
SUBJECT: Acceptance of a Donation from the Del Mar Foundation of Art Name Plaques for the James Hubbell Sculpture located at the Del Mar Library REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council accept a donation from the Del Mar Foundation of two name plaques identifying the James Hubbell sculpture, entitled A River of Time, located at the Del Mar Library.

DISCUSSION:

The James Hubbell sculpture entitled A River of Time was acquired by the City of Del Mar in 1999, under the fiscal sponsorship of the Del Mar Foundation, with an approximate cost of $34,000, underwritten by an anonymous donor. The Foundation and Friends of the Del Mar Library also sponsored the public process of review and comment for this art acquisition. The sculpture has never had a plaque identifying the artwork.

The proposal is to install two plaques consistent with the City's draft art plaque standards:
one at the base of the sculpture, and a second placed in the garden area adjacent to the sculpture. The plaque to be located at the base of the sculpture is proposed to be 8 inches wide by 5 inches high, which is the same size as the art bench plaques. The second plaque is intended to provide information to those who view the plaque from the sidewalk, since most people see it from that vantage point, and do not walk up the steps to the sculpture's location. City staff will determine the best location to place this plaque so that it is legible to people who are standing on the sidewalk, but not so close to the mosaic wall as to risk confusion with that artwork. It is proposed that this plaque be 10 inches wide by 8 inches high.

The Del Mar Foundation has offered to purchase and donate the propose art name plaques to the City. The proposed design and layout of the plaques will follow the draft plaque standards and is included as Attachment A.
1 April 4, 2022 Item 06
City Council Agenda Report
DM Foundation Donation of Art Name Plaques
April 4, 2022

FISCAL IMPACT:

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

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 is not included on the City Council’s list of Goals and Priorities.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Proposed art plaque design
2 April 4, 2022 Item 06

ATTACHMENT A
Plaque Verbiage for:

James Hubbell sculpture, entitled A River of Time
Sample Plaque Design

A RIVER OF TIME
Bronze
James T. Hubbell
Anonymous gift through Del Mar Foundation
Del Mar
Public Art Collection
1999-1
Torrey Pine
Logo
3 April 4, 2022 Item 06
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Tom Romaine, Facilities Supervisor
Joe Bride, Public Works Director
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: April 4, 2022
SUBJECT: Award of Construction Contracts for 25th Street Lifeguard Tower and 17th Street Beach Safety Center Door Replacement Projects
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Approve a construction contract with Dave A.

Ward for the 25th Street Lifeguard Tower Exterior Door Replacement Project (Attachment A); 2) Approve a construction contract with Superior Door Systems, Inc. for the 17th Street Beach Safety Center Garage Door Replacement Project (Attachment B); and 3) Authorize the City Manager to execute the contracts and any contract changes that are necessary to complete the identified work.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

The City of Del Mar owns lifeguard tower facilities at 25th Street and 17th Street (Beach Safety Center). After years of intense use, corrosion and deterioration caused by exposure to the marine elements, several of the exterior and garage doors at these facilities are in need of replacement.
25th Street Lifeguard Tower
The 25th Street tower was constructed in 2003 and includes two public restrooms. All four of the original exterior doors, which are almost 20 years old, have deteriorated to nearly “inoperable/unsafe” conditions due to years of corrosion, exposure to the marine elements, and excessive use. The doors cannot be replaced with typical standard doors because the doors/hardware/locking mechanisms are custom designed to match the buildings’ unique exterior features, hardwood material, and structural framing. As such, the replacement doors will need to be custom designed and manufactured.

Staff has spent over eight months soliciting proposals to replace the exterior doors and only received one qualified proposal from local manufacturer Dave A. Ward. For this reason, staff is recommending an exemption from bidding for this project pursuant to Section 7.04.090(B) of the Del Mar Municipal Code: Goods and/or services can be 1 April 4, 2022 Item 07
City Council Agenda Report
Award of Construction Contracts for Lifeguard Facilities Door Replacement Projects April 4, 2022

reasonably obtained from only a single source. Staff recommends awarding the contract to Dave A. Ward for this Project, in an amount totaling $32,500 (Exhibit B to Attachment A).

The City will also need to rent two temporary portable restrooms for the 25th Street tower location while the door installation work is being done in order to provide uninterrupted restroom service to staff and the public. The total estimated cost for the temporary portable restrooms that will be in place for the duration of the project is $5,000 (Attachment C).

If approved by the City Council, the doors for the 25th Street Lifeguard Tower project are expected to take approximately 12 weeks to manufacture and an additional two weeks to install.
17th Street Beach Safety Center
The 17th Street Beach Safety Center was constructed in 2013 and includes two motorized steel roll-up garage doors mounted on steel tracks. The original doors/tracks/motors were constructed of lower grade steel which has not withstood the elements, and the systems have also deteriorated to nearly “inoperable/unsafe” conditions. Staff proposes to replace these systems with marine grade stainless steel alternatives that will provide a longer useful life.

Cookson Doors was the original equipment manufacturer of the overhead garage doors during new construction of the 17th Street Beach and Safety Center. Staff recommends replacing the equipment in kind (with the exception of upgrading all material to stainless steel) in order to maintain compatibility with the previously installed doors and frames.

Superior Door Systems, Inc. is a local supplier of Cookson Doors that are compatible with the current equipment. For this reason, staff is seeking exemption from bidding for this project pursuant to Section 7.04.090(D) of the Del Mar Municipal Code: Items required matching or being compatible with other goods, furnishings, materials, or equipment previously purchased by the City.

The cost for Superior Door Systems to replace the two motorized garage doors at the Beach Safety Center, including upgrading all replacement materials to marine grade stainless steel, is $70,891 for the project (Exhibit B to Attachment B).

If approved by the City Council, the doors for the 17th Street Beach Safety Center project are expected to take approximately ten weeks to manufacture and an additional two weeks to install.

Public Works staff will work closely with the contractors and Community Services Department to minimize public impacts and ensure lifeguard service levels and public access are not disrupted during the work to be performed at both the 17th Street and 25th Street locations.
2 April 4, 2022 Item 07
City Council Agenda Report
Award of Construction Contracts for Lifeguard Facilities Door Replacement Projects April 4, 2022

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal action to be taken by the City Council for this agenda item. Funds for the door projects and related temporary restroom costs totaling $108,391 are available in the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Open Space and Facilities Improvement Capital Improvement Projects budget.

NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This is an operational item and is not included on the City Council’s list of Goals & Priorities.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Construction Contract with Dave A. Ward
Attachment B – Construction Contract with Superior Door Systems, Inc.

Attachment C – Diamond Estimate for Temporary Restroom Facilities 3 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND DAVID A. WARD
FOR THE 25TH STREET LIFEGUARD TOWER

EXTERIOR DOOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT

This Construction Contract (“Contract”) is made and entered into by and between the City of Del Mar, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "City," and David A. Ward hereinafter referred to as the “Contractor” (collectively “Parties”).

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City requires a general contractor to construct a Public Works project generally described as the 25th Street Lifeguard Tower Exterior Door Replacement Project hereinafter referred to as the “Project.” WHEREAS, the Contractor represents itself as possessing the necessary skills and qualifications to construct the Project required by the City and possesses the required contractor’s license of the appropriate classifications.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of these recitals and the mutual covenants contained herein, and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinafter mentioned, the Parties agree as follows:

1. CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS.

1.1 Contractor shall perform the scope of work shown in the Exhibit A hereinafter referred to as the “Work”, as such term is defined by the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, latest version (GREENBOOK).

1.2 The Contractor agrees, at the Contractor's own proper cost and expense, to do all the Work and furnish all the materials, except such as are mentioned in the specifications to be furnished by the City, necessary to construct and complete the Work in a good, workmanlike and substantial manner and to the satisfaction of the City.

1.3 Said Work shall be performed in accordance with the Contract Specifications, Drawings, and Provisions annexed hereto; and in connection with the Reference Standards below:

Standard Edition
Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction
(“The GREENBOOK”)
2018
San Diego Regional Standard Drawings 2018

1.4 The Contractor shall maintain throughout the full term of this Contract all professional certifications and licenses required in order to comply with all City, State, and Federal laws in the performance of this Contract.

1.5 The Contractor shall pay wages to the Contractor's employees according to the current "General Prevailing Wage Rates" issued by the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California. Pursuant to provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to 4 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND DAVID A. WARD
FOR THE 25TH STREET LIFEGUARD TOWER

EXTERIOR DOOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT

execute this Contractor, from Director of the Department of Industrial Relations.

These rates are available online with the California Department of Industrial Relations (www.dir.ca.gov). The Contractor shall post a copy of such rates at the job site and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. The Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1725.5, 1771, 1773.8, 1774, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, 1813, and 1815 of the Labor Code.

1.6 The Contractor shall register with the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) in accordance with California Labor Code sections 1771.1 and 1725.5 and the Contractor shall be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR in accordance with California Labor Code section 1771.4.

1.7 Pursuant to and subject to the provisions of Section 1775 of the Labor Code, Contractor shall forfeit to City, as a penalty, the sum of up to two-hundred dollars ($200) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any Work done under this Contract, by it or by any subcontractor under it, in violation of the provisions of the Contract.

2. CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHEDULE.

2.1 The City agrees to pay and the Contractor agrees to receive the contract amount of Thirty Two Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($32,500) as described in Exhibit B as full compensation for furnishing all materials, performing all work, and fulfilling all obligations hereunder. Said compensation shall cover all expenses, losses, damages, and consequences arising out of the nature of the work during its progress or prior to its acceptance, including those for well and faithfully completing the work and the whole thereof in the manner and time specified in the aforesaid contract documents and also including those arising from actions of the elements, unforeseen difficulties or obstructions encountered in the prosecution of the work, suspension or discontinuance of the work, and all other unknowns or risks of any description connected with the work.

2.2 Contractor agrees to complete the Work on the Project in a time period not to exceed one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days per Section 6-3 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (GREENBOOK), commencing upon the date stated in the Notice to Proceed issued by the City.

Construction shall not commence until the City has approved bonds and insurance.

3. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT.

In the event of the Contractor's failure to prosecute, deliver, or perform the Work as provided for in this Contract, the City may terminate this Contract by notifying the Contractor by certified mail of said termination.
5 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND DAVID A. WARD
FOR THE 25TH STREET LIFEGUARD TOWER

EXTERIOR DOOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT

4. STATUS OF THE CONTRACTOR.

The Contractor shall perform the services provided for herein in a manner of Contractor's own choice, as an independent Contractor and in pursuit of Contractor's independent calling, and not as an employee of the City. Contractor shall be under control of the City only as to the result to be accomplished and the personnel assigned to the project. However, Contractor shall confer with the City as required to perform this Contract.

5. SUBCONTRACTING.

The Contractor’s ability to subcontract is limited by and must comply with the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act, California Public Contract Code sections 4100 et seq. If the Contractor subcontracts any of the Work to be performed under this Contract, the Contractor shall be as fully responsible to the City for the acts and omissions of the Contractor's subcontractor and of the persons either directly or indirectly employed by the subcontractor, as Contractor is for the acts and omissions of persons directly employed by Contractor. Nothing contained in the Contract shall create any contractual relations between any subcontractor of Contractor and the City. The Contractor shall bind every subcontractor by the terms of the Contract applicable to Contractor's Work unless specifically noted to the contrary in the subcontract in question approved in writing by the City.

6. ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT.

The Contractor has no authority or right to assign this Contract or any part thereof or any monies due thereunder to any other party without first obtaining the prior written consent of the City.

7. VERBAL AGREEMENT OR CONVERSATION.

No verbal agreement or conversation with any officer, agent or employee of the City, either before, during or after the execution of this Contract, shall affect or modify any of the terms or obligations herein contained nor shall such verbal agreement or conversation entitle the Contractor to any additional payment whatsoever under the terms of this Contract.

8. DISPUTES.

8.1 If a dispute should arise regarding the performance of this Contract, the following procedures shall be used to address any question of fact or interpretation not otherwise settled by agreement between the parties. Such questions, if they become identified as part of a dispute between persons operating under the provisions of the Contract, shall be reduced to writing by the complaining party.

A copy of such documented dispute shall be forwarded to the other party involved along with recommended methods of resolution which would be of benefit to both parties. The party receiving the letter shall reply to the letter along with a recommended method of resolution within ten (10) days of receipt of the letter. 6 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND DAVID A. WARD
FOR THE 25TH STREET LIFEGUARD TOWER

EXTERIOR DOOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT

8.2 If the dispute is not resolved, the aggrieved party shall send a letter outlining the dispute to the City to be resolved.

8.3 If the dispute remains unresolved and the parties have exhausted the procedures of this section, the parties may then seek remedies available to them at law.

8.4 Pursuant to Public Contract Code Sections 20104 and 9204, a claim by the Contractor for a time extension; payment of money or damages arising from Work done by or on behalf of the Contractor pursuant to the Contract which is not otherwise expressly provided for or the claimant is not otherwise entitled to; or an amount the payment of which is disputed by the City, shall be dealt with as follows:

A. The claim shall be in writing and include the documents necessary to substantiate the claim. Claims must be filed on or before the date of final payment. Nothing in this subdivision is intended to extend the time limit or supersede notice requirements otherwise provided by the Contract for the filing of claims.

B. For all claims, pursuant to Public Contract Code Sections 20104 and 9204:

1. City shall respond in writing to any written claim within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the claim, or may request, in writing, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the claim, any additional documentation supporting the claim or relating to defenses or claims the City may have against the claimant. City shall identify the disputed and undisputed portion(s) of the claim in the written response. If City fails to issue a written statement, the claim is rejected in its entirety.

2. If additional information is thereafter required, it shall be requested and provided pursuant to this subdivision, upon mutual agreement of the City and the claimant.

3. The City's written response to the claim, as further documented, shall be submitted to the claimant within fifteen (15) days after receipt of the further documentation or within a period of time no greater than that taken by the claimant in producing the additional information, whichever is greater.

4. Pursuant to Public Contract Code section 9204, any payment on any undisputed portion of the claim shall be processed and made within sixty (60) days after the public entity issues its written statement.

C. If the claimant disputes the City's written response, or the City fails to respond within the time prescribed, the claimant may so notify the City, in writing, either within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the City's response or within fifteen (15) days of the City's failure to respond within the time prescribed, respectively, and demand an informal conference to meet and confer for settlement of the issues in dispute. Upon a demand sent by registered or certified mail, the City shall schedule a meet and confer conference within thirty (30) days for 7 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND DAVID A. WARD
FOR THE 25TH STREET LIFEGUARD TOWER

EXTERIOR DOOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT

settlement of the dispute. Within ten (10) business days after the meet and confer conference, City shall prepare a written statement describing portions of the claim in dispute and the portions of the claim that are disputed.

Mediation Prerequisite: If following the meet and conference the claim or any portion remains in dispute, the parties agree that as a condition precedent to the initiation of litigation, the parties shall submit to non-binding mediation. The parties shall mutually agree to a mediator within ten (10) business days after the City’s response following the meet and confer conference. The parties shall make reasonable attempts to mediate within thirty (30) days of the meet and confer conference. Mediation shall be subject to the following rules:

1. The mediation process shall be administered by a neutral organization agreed to by the parties and shall be confidential subject to Evidence Code Sections 1115 –1128 and 1152.

2. The costs for mediation will be shared equally by all parties. The expenses of witnesses shall be paid by the party producing such witnesses.

3. A single mediator shall be selected to mediate the dispute. At least ten (10) days before a scheduled session, each party shall provide the mediator a brief memorandum setting forth its position about the issues that need to be resolved. The brief shall be mutually exchanged between the parties. At the mediation session, the parties will be expected to produce required information for the mediator to understand and evaluate the issues presented.

4. The mediation process shall be considered terminated when: (1) in the mediator’s judgment, further efforts at mediation would not contribute to a resolution of the dispute between the parties; or, (2) by the execution of Settlement Agreement, which may be used as the basis for change order or other directive as appropriate; or, (3) written declaration of a party that it will no longer participate in further mediation proceedings.

D. If mediation is unsuccessful, as a prerequisite to filing suit, the Contractor must file a claim pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with section 910) of Part 3 of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code. For purposes of those provisions, the period of time within which a claim must be filed shall begin from the time the claimant submits his or her written claim pursuant to subsection A until the time the claim is denied, including any period of time utilized by the meet and confer conference.

A civil action filed to resolve a claim subject to Section 9.4 of this Contract shall be subject to the provisions of Public Contract Code Sections 20104.4 and 20104.6.
8 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND DAVID A. WARD
FOR THE 25TH STREET LIFEGUARD TOWER

EXTERIOR DOOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT

9. HOLD HARMLESS.

9.1 The Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold the City; the City's officers, officials, employees and agents; the Engineer; and the Engineer’s officers, officials, employees and agents (together, the “City Indemnified Parties”), harmless from, and against any and all liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, suit damage, expenses and costs, including all costs of defense, expense costs and investigation expenses thereof, arising out of, or in any manner connected directly or indirectly to the acts, omissions or performance of Work by the Contractor or Contractor’s agents, employees, subcontractors, officials, officers or representatives. Upon demand, Contractor shall, at its own expense, defend the City Indemnified Parties from and against any and all such liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages and costs, regardless of whether or not such a claim, loss or liability is caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder.

9.2 By inspecting, approving or accepting the improvements, City shall not have waived the protections afforded herein to the City Indemnified Parties or diminished the obligation of Contractor, who shall remain obligated in the same degree to indemnify and hold the City Indemnified Parties harmless as provided above.

9.3 Contractor's obligation herein does not extend to liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages or costs that arise out of the City Indemnified Parties’ sole active negligence or willful misconduct.

10. RESPONSIBILITY FOR DAMAGE.

10.1 The Contractor shall obtain and maintain in full force and effect during the life of the Contract, contractual liability insurance for bodily injury liability and property damage liability assumed by the Contractor of all claims and lawsuits against the Contractor and his/her subcontractors arising out of or in connection with the Work to be performed. Such insurance as is afforded by the policy to the Contractor for Contractual Property Damage Liability Insurance shall include coverage for property damage caused by blasting, collapse, structural injuries or damage to underground utilities. The policy shall not contain the so-called "x" "c" "u" exclusions.

10.2 The Contractor shall maintain vehicle liability, and property damage insurance in the amount of not less than $2,000,000 for one person injured in one accident, and not less than $2,000,000 for two or more persons injured in any one accident, and not less than $2,000,000 with respect to any property damage involved and public general liability insurance in the amount of not less than $2,000,000 each occurrence or in the aggregate.

10.3 Evidence of insurance including Commercial General Liability, Workers’ Compensation, and Automobile Liability in compliance with the above requirements shall be furnished to the City by Certificate of Insurance. Such Certificate of Insurance shall be furnished prior to the commencement of Work 9 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND DAVID A. WARD
FOR THE 25TH STREET LIFEGUARD TOWER

EXTERIOR DOOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT

under the Contract. The insurance policy shall provide that the policy shall remain in force during the life of this Contract and shall not be canceled, terminated, or allowed to expire without thirty (30) days prior written notice to City from the insurance company.

10.4 Such insurance shall be issued by a company or companies approved by the City, licensed and listed with "Insurance Organizations Authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to Transact the Business of Insurance in the State of California," and shall have a rating of A- or better.

10.5 Insurance coverage in the minimum amounts set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve the Contractor for liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it preclude the City from taking such other actions as is available to it under any other provision of this Contract or otherwise in law.

10.6 The Contractor shall arrange for the policies to be so conditioned as to cover the performance of any changes or extra Work which may be required under the Contract.

10.7 The costs of this insurance shall be considered as included in the prices paid for the various Contract items of Work and no additional compensation will be allowed, therefore.

10.8 The Contractor shall either: (1) require each of its subcontractors to procure and to maintain Subcontractor's Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance and Vehicle Liability Insurance of the type and in the amounts specified, or (2) insure the activities of its subcontractors in its own policy in like amount.

10.9 The Contractor's policies shall contain an Additional Insured Endorsement naming as additional insured the City and its officers, consultants, agents, and employees while on the Project and acting within the scope of their duties. For any claims related to the Project, Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be in excess of Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

10.10 Prior to commencement of Work under this Contract, the Contractor shall furnish endorsements from each of the insurance companies.

10.11 The Contractor shall reimburse the City and the Engineer for all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by said City and the Engineer, in enforcing the provisions of Section 11.0 of this Contract.

11. NOTICES.

Any notices to be given under this Contract, or otherwise, shall be served by certified mail and addressed and delivered as listed below:
10 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND DAVID A. WARD
FOR THE 25TH STREET LIFEGUARD TOWER

EXTERIOR DOOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT

City of Del Mar David A. Ward
Attn: City Clerk Attn: David A. Ward
1050 Camino del Mar 10345 Rancho Rd.

Del Mar, CA 92014 La Mesa, CA 91941
[email protected] [email protected]

12. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES; EXTENSION OF TIME.

In accordance with Government Code Section 53069.85, CONTRACTOR agrees to forfeit and pay to CITY the sum of two hundred dollars ($200) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond the time allowed pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR will be granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of and without the fault or negligence of CONTRACTOR, including delays caused by CITY. CONTRACTOR is required to promptly notify CITY of any such delay.

13. PERFORMANCE.

The City hereby promises and agrees with the Contractor to employ, and does hereby employ the Contractor to provide the materials and to do the Work according to the terms and conditions herein contained and referred to, for the prices aforesaid, and hereby contracts to pay the same at the time, and in the manner and upon the conditions hereinafter set forth, and the City and the Contractor for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, do hereby agree to the full performance of the covenants herein contained.

14. CONTRACT AUTHORITY OVER PROPOSAL.

It is further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that should there be any conflict between the terms of this instrument and the Bid or Proposal of the Contractor, then this instrument shall control, and nothing herein shall be considered as an acceptance of the said terms of said Proposal conflicting herewith.

15. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.

The Contract consists of the following documents, all of which are component parts of the Contract as if herein set out in full, or attached hereto:

1. Proposal

2. Contract

3. Worker's Compensation Certificate
All the above-named Contract Documents are intended to be complementary. The Work required by one of the above-named documents and not by others shall be performed as if required by all. Any conflicts in terms or requirements of any of the Contract Documents shall be determined by the order of precedence set forth in the GREENBOOK.
11 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND DAVID A. WARD
FOR THE 25TH STREET LIFEGUARD TOWER

EXTERIOR DOOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT

16. ATTACHMENTS.

The following Contract Documents are attached hereto as Exhibits:

A. Scope of Work
B. Compensation for Work – Contractor’s Proposal
C. Worker's Compensation Certificate

17. NON-DISCRIMINATION.

Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, military or veteran status, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, or any other class protected under state, federal, or local law. Contractor shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to any class or category protected under state, federal, or local law and shall make reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment, or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship.

18. CALIFORNIA LAW; VENUE/MISCELLANEOUS.

This Contract shall be construed and interpreted according to the laws of the State of California. Any action brought to enforce or interpret any portion of this Contractt shall be brought in the County of San Diego, California. Contractor hereby waives any and all rights it might have pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 394.

19. CONSULTANT’S CERTIFICATION OF AWARENESS OF IMMIGRATION AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986.

Contractor certifies that Contractor is aware of the requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (8 USC §§ 1101-1525) and has complied and will comply with these requirements, including, but not limited to, verifying the eligibility for employment of all agents, employees, subcontractors, and consultants that are included in this Contract.

20. NO WAIVER.

No failure of either the City or the Contractor t to insist upon the strict performance by the other of any covenant, term or condition of this Contract, nor any failure to exercise any right or remedy consequent upon a breach of any covenant, term, or condition of this Contract shall constitute a waiver of any such breach of such covenant, term or condition.
12 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND DAVID A. WARD
FOR THE 25TH STREET LIFEGUARD TOWER

EXTERIOR DOOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT

21. SEVERABILITY.

The unenforceability, invalidity, or illegality of any provision of this Agreement shall not render any other provision unenforceable, invalid, or illegal.

22. CONFLICTS BETWEEN TERMS.

If an apparent conflict or inconsistency exists between the main body of this Contract and the Exhibits, the main body of this Contract shall control. If a conflict exists between an applicable federal, state, or local law, rule, regulation, order, or code and this Contract, the law, rule, regulation, order, or code shall control.

Varying degrees of stringency among the main body of this Contracts, the Exhibits, and laws, rules, regulations, orders, or codes are not deemed conflicts, and the most stringent requirement shall control. Each Party shall notify the other immediately upon the identification of any apparent conflict or inconsistency concerning this Contract.

23. SIGNING AUTHORITY.

The representative for each Party signing on behalf of a corporation, partnership, joint venture, or governmental entity hereby declares that authority has been obtained to sign on behalf of the corporation, partnership, joint venture, or entity and agrees to hold the other Party or Parties hereto harmless if it is later determined that such authority does not exist.
[SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE]
13 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND DAVID A. WARD
FOR THE 25TH STREET LIFEGUARD TOWER

EXTERIOR DOOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Contract, which will be effective as of the date of the City’s execution of the Contract listed below.

CITY OF DEL MAR, DAVID A. WARD,
a municipal corporation Independent Contractor
By: By:

Ashley Jones, City Manager David A. Ward
Date: Date:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
ATTEST:
________________________________
Sarah Krietor, Acting City Clerk
14 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND DAVID A. WARD
FOR THE 25TH STREET LIFEGUARD TOWER

EXTERIOR DOOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT

EXHIBIT A – SCOPE OF WORK
The Contractor shall perform the following scope of work:
 Replacement of two (2) bathroom doors and jamb replacements  Replacement of a pair of doors in front of the Lifeguard tower  Replacement of Dutch door on entrance to the Lifeguard tower  Doors hung into existing jambs in the office area
 New stainless steel hinges included on the above doors  Locks, pulls, push plates, slide-bolts, stops, closers  Wood to be used will be Teak
 Demolition and disposal of existing doors and hardware 15 April 4, 2022 Item 07
David A Ward Lic# 552217
Contractor 619-701-3026 10345 Rancho Rd La Mesa CA 91941 [email protected]
=========================================================== March 13, 2022
Tom Romaine
Facilities Supervisor City Of Del Mar CA
619-756-4492
RE: 25th St Del Mar CA…. Lifeguard and bathroom doors.

Furnish and install.
2- bathroom door and jamb replacements.
1-Pair of doors in front of the Lifeguard office.
1- Dutch door on entrance to the Lifeguard office.

Doors hung into existing jambs in the office area.

New stainless steel hinges included on the above doors.

Locks, pulls, push plates, slide-bolts, stops, closers to be quoted per specifications provided By others. Price includes installation of above items.

Wood to be used will be Teak.

Manufacturer provides no Warranty Due to exposure and location of doors. 16 April 4, 2022 Item 07
Drawing of doors and jambs will be provided and will need to be accepted prior to manufacture.

Doors will have no finish. If finish is requested a separate quote will be provided.

Haul away of old doors and materials is included.

Deposit of 50% will be due at acceptance.

Total $32,500.00
David Ward
17 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND DAVID A. WARD
FOR THE 25TH STREET LIFEGUARD TOWER

EXTERIOR DOOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT

EXHIBIT C - WORKER'S COMPENSATION CERTIFICATE
Section 3700 of the Labor Code provides in part as follows:
"Every employer except the state shall secure the payment of compensation in one or more of the following ways:
(a) By being insured against liability to pay compensation by one or more insurers duly authorized to write compensation insurance in this state. (b) By securing from the Director of Industrial Relations a certificate of consent to self-insure either as an individual employer, or as one employer in a group of employers, which may be given upon furnishing proof satisfactory to the Director of Industrial Relations of ability to self-insure and to pay any compensation that may become due to his or her employees.” I hereby certify that I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for worker's compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work of this Contract.

CONTRACTOR'S NAME:

ADDRESS:

BOND NO.:

SIGNATURE:

PRINT NAME/TITLE OF SIGNER:

DATE:
18 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND SUPERIOR DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE 17TH STREET BEACH SAFETY CENTER GARAGE DOOR

REPLACEMENT PROJECT

This Construction Contract (“Contract”) is made and entered into by and between the City of Del Mar, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "City," and Superior Door Systems, Inc. hereinafter referred to as the “Contractor” (collectively “Parties”).

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City requires a general contractor to construct a Public Works project generally described as the 17th Street Beach Safety Center Garage Door Replacement Project hereinafter referred to as the “Project.” WHEREAS, the Contractor represents itself as possessing the necessary skills and qualifications to construct the Project required by the City and possesses the required contractor’s license of the appropriate classifications.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of these recitals and the mutual covenants contained herein, and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinafter mentioned, the Parties agree as follows:

1. CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS.

1.1 Contractor shall perform the scope of work shown in the Exhibit A hereinafter referred to as the “Work”, as such term is defined by the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, latest version (GREENBOOK).

1.2 The Contractor agrees, at the Contractor's own proper cost and expense, to do all the Work and furnish all the materials, except such as are mentioned in the specifications to be furnished by the City, necessary to construct and complete the Work in a good, workmanlike and substantial manner and to the satisfaction of the City.

1.3 Said Work shall be performed in accordance with the Contract Specifications, Drawings, and Provisions annexed hereto; and in connection with the Reference Standards below:

Standard Edition
Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction
(“The GREENBOOK”)
2018
San Diego Regional Standard Drawings 2018

1.4 The Contractor shall maintain throughout the full term of this Contract all professional certifications and licenses required in order to comply with all City, State, and Federal laws in the performance of this Contract.

1.5 The Contractor shall pay wages to the Contractor's employees according to the current "General Prevailing Wage Rates" issued by the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California. Pursuant to provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to 19 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND SUPERIOR DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE 17TH STREET BEACH SAFETY CENTER GARAGE DOOR

REPLACEMENT PROJECT

execute this Contractor, from Director of the Department of Industrial Relations.

These rates are available online with the California Department of Industrial Relations (www.dir.ca.gov). The Contractor shall post a copy of such rates at the job site and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. The Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1725.5, 1771, 1773.8, 1774, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, 1813, and 1815 of the Labor Code.

1.6 The Contractor shall register with the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) in accordance with California Labor Code sections 1771.1 and 1725.5 and the Contractor shall be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR in accordance with California Labor Code section 1771.4.

1.7 Pursuant to and subject to the provisions of Section 1775 of the Labor Code, Contractor shall forfeit to City, as a penalty, the sum of up to two-hundred dollars ($200) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any Work done under this Contract, by it or by any subcontractor under it, in violation of the provisions of the Contract.

2. SECURITY FOR CONTRACTOR'S PROMISE TO PERFORM.

2.1 For contracts above $25,000, the Contractor shall post and maintain during the full term of this Contract security for Contractor's promise to perform this Contract in the following forms and amounts:

A. The amount of the performance security shall be 100% of bid amount.

B. The form of the security shall be one of the following:

1. Cash;

2. Cashier's check made payable to the City;

3. A certified check made payable to the City;

4. A bond, executed by an approved surety insurer using the Performance Bond form found herein or a substitute form acceptable to and approved by the City, made payable to the City; or

5. The Contractor may elect to deposit securities of a value equivalent to the amount of the performance security in accordance with the provisions of section 22300 of the Public Contract Code. The City will make the final determination as to the value of the posted securities.

2.2 The City shall retain five percent (5%) of each payment due the Contractor under this Contract until completion and acceptance of the Project. The Contractor may elect to deposit securities of a value equivalent to the retention in accordance with the provisions of Section 22300 of the Public Contract Code and thereby become entitled to receive one hundred percent (100%) of the payments, without retention. The City will make the final determination as to the value of the posted securities. The amount of retention withheld may be reduced, or a portion of withheld retention may be returned, at the sole discretion of the City. 20 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND SUPERIOR DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE 17TH STREET BEACH SAFETY CENTER GARAGE DOOR

REPLACEMENT PROJECT

2.3 For contract amounts above $25,000, the Contractor shall file a payment bond using the Payment Bond form found herein or a substitute form acceptable to and approved by the City, in the amount of 100% of bid amount, with and subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works in accordance with Civil Code section 3247.

3. CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHEDULE.

3.1 The City agrees to pay and the Contractor agrees to receive the contract amount of Seventy Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety One dollars ($70,891) as further described in Exhibit B as full compensation for furnishing all materials, performing all work, and fulfilling all obligations hereunder. Said compensation shall cover all expenses, losses, damages, and consequences arising out of the nature of the work during its progress or prior to its acceptance, including those for well and faithfully completing the work and the whole thereof in the manner and time specified in the aforesaid contract documents and also including those arising from actions of the elements, unforeseen difficulties or obstructions encountered in the prosecution of the work, suspension or discontinuance of the work, and all other unknowns or risks of any description connected with the work.

3.2 Contractor agrees to complete the Work on the Project in a time period not to exceed one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days per Section 6-3 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (GREENBOOK), commencing upon the date stated in the Notice To Proceed issued by the City.

Construction shall not commence until the City has approved bonds and insurance.

4. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT.

In the event of the Contractor's failure to prosecute, deliver, or perform the Work as provided for in this Contract, the City may terminate this Contract by notifying the Contractor by certified mail of said termination.

5. STATUS OF THE CONTRACTOR.

The Contractor shall perform the services provided for herein in a manner of Contractor's own choice, as an independent Contractor and in pursuit of Contractor's independent calling, and not as an employee of the City. Contractor shall be under control of the City only as to the result to be accomplished and the personnel assigned to the project. However, Contractor shall confer with the City as required to perform this Contract.

6. SUBCONTRACTING.

The Contractor’s ability to subcontract is limited by and must comply with the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act, California Public Contract Code sections 4100 et seq. If the Contractor subcontracts any of the Work to be performed under this Contract, the Contractor shall be as fully responsible to the City for the 21 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND SUPERIOR DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE 17TH STREET BEACH SAFETY CENTER GARAGE DOOR

REPLACEMENT PROJECT

acts and omissions of the Contractor's subcontractor and of the persons either directly or indirectly employed by the subcontractor, as Contractor is for the acts and omissions of persons directly employed by Contractor. Nothing contained in the Contract shall create any contractual relations between any subcontractor of Contractor and the City. The Contractor shall bind every subcontractor by the terms of the Contract applicable to Contractor's Work unless specifically noted to the contrary in the subcontract in question approved in writing by the City.

7. ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT.

The Contractor has no authority or right to assign this Contract or any part thereof or any monies due thereunder to any other party without first obtaining the prior written consent of the City.

8. VERBAL AGREEMENT OR CONVERSATION.

No verbal agreement or conversation with any officer, agent or employee of the City, either before, during or after the execution of this Contract, shall affect or modify any of the terms or obligations herein contained nor shall such verbal agreement or conversation entitle the Contractor to any additional payment whatsoever under the terms of this Contract.

9. DISPUTES.

9.1 If a dispute should arise regarding the performance of this Contract, the following procedures shall be used to address any question of fact or interpretation not otherwise settled by agreement between the parties. Such questions, if they become identified as part of a dispute between persons operating under the provisions of the Contract, shall be reduced to writing by the complaining party.

A copy of such documented dispute shall be forwarded to the other party involved along with recommended methods of resolution which would be of benefit to both parties. The party receiving the letter shall reply to the letter along with a recommended method of resolution within ten (10) days of receipt of the letter.

9.2 If the dispute is not resolved, the aggrieved party shall send a letter outlining the dispute to the City to be resolved.

9.3 If the dispute remains unresolved and the parties have exhausted the procedures of this section, the parties may then seek remedies available to them at law.

9.4 Pursuant to Public Contract Code Sections 20104 and 9204, a claim by the Contractor for a time extension; payment of money or damages arising from Work done by or on behalf of the Contractor pursuant to the Contract which is not otherwise expressly provided for or the claimant is not otherwise entitled to; or an amount the payment of which is disputed by the City, shall be dealt with as follows:

A. The claim shall be in writing and include the documents necessary to substantiate the claim. Claims must be filed on or before the date of final payment. Nothing in this subdivision is intended to extend the time limit or 22 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND SUPERIOR DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE 17TH STREET BEACH SAFETY CENTER GARAGE DOOR

REPLACEMENT PROJECT

supersede notice requirements otherwise provided by the Contract for the filing of claims.

B. For all claims, pursuant to Public Contract Code Sections 20104 and 9204:

1. City shall respond in writing to any written claim within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the claim, or may request, in writing, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the claim, any additional documentation supporting the claim or relating to defenses or claims the City may have against the claimant. City shall identify the disputed and undisputed portion(s) of the claim in the written response. If City fails to issue a written statement, the claim is rejected in its entirety.

2. If additional information is thereafter required, it shall be requested and provided pursuant to this subdivision, upon mutual agreement of the City and the claimant.

3. The City's written response to the claim, as further documented, shall be submitted to the claimant within fifteen (15) days after receipt of the further documentation or within a period of time no greater than that taken by the claimant in producing the additional information, whichever is greater.

4. Pursuant to Public Contract Code section 9204, any payment on any undisputed portion of the claim shall be processed and made within sixty (60) days after the public entity issues its written statement.

C. If the claimant disputes the City's written response, or the City fails to respond within the time prescribed, the claimant may so notify the City, in writing, either within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the City's response or within fifteen (15) days of the City's failure to respond within the time prescribed, respectively, and demand an informal conference to meet and confer for settlement of the issues in dispute. Upon a demand sent by registered or certified mail, the City shall schedule a meet and confer conference within thirty (30) days for settlement of the dispute. Within ten (10) business days after the meet and confer conference, City shall prepare a written statement describing portions of the claim in dispute and the portions of the claim that are disputed.

Mediation Prerequisite: If following the meet and conference the claim or any portion remains in dispute, the parties agree that as a condition precedent to the initiation of litigation, the parties shall submit to non-binding mediation. The parties shall mutually agree to a mediator within ten (10) business days after the City’s response following the meet and confer conference. The parties shall make reasonable attempts to mediate within thirty (30) days of the meet and confer conference. Mediation shall be subject to the following rules:

1. The mediation process shall be administered by a neutral organization agreed to by the parties and shall be confidential subject to Evidence Code Sections 1115 –1128 and 1152.
23 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND SUPERIOR DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE 17TH STREET BEACH SAFETY CENTER GARAGE DOOR

REPLACEMENT PROJECT

2. The costs for mediation will be shared equally by all parties. The expenses of witnesses shall be paid by the party producing such witnesses.

3. A single mediator shall be selected to mediate the dispute. At least ten (10) days before a scheduled session, each party shall provide the mediator a brief memorandum setting forth its position about the issues that need to be resolved. The brief shall be mutually exchanged between the parties. At the mediation session, the parties will be expected to produce required information for the mediator to understand and evaluate the issues presented.

4. The mediation process shall be considered terminated when: (1) in the mediator’s judgment, further efforts at mediation would not contribute to a resolution of the dispute between the parties; or, (2) by the execution of Settlement Agreement, which may be used as the basis for change order or other directive as appropriate; or, (3) written declaration of a party that it will no longer participate in further mediation proceedings.

D. If mediation is unsuccessful, as a prerequisite to filing suit, the Contractor must file a claim pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with section 910) of Part 3 of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code. For purposes of those provisions, the period of time within which a claim must be filed shall begin from the time the claimant submits his or her written claim pursuant to subsection A until the time the claim is denied, including any period of time utilized by the meet and confer conference.

A civil action filed to resolve a claim subject to Section 9.4 of this Contract shall be subject to the provisions of Public Contract Code Sections 20104.4 and 20104.6.

10. HOLD HARMLESS.

10.1 The Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold the City; the City's officers, officials, employees and agents; the Engineer; and the Engineer’s officers, officials, employees and agents (together, the “City Indemnified Parties”), harmless from, and against any and all liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, suit damage, expenses and costs, including all costs of defense, expense costs and investigation expenses thereof, arising out of, or in any manner connected directly or indirectly to the acts, omissions or performance of Work by the Contractor or Contractor’s agents, employees, subcontractors, officials, officers or representatives. Upon demand, Contractor shall, at its own expense, defend the City Indemnified Parties from and against any and all such liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages and costs, regardless of whether or not such a claim, loss or liability is caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder.
24 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND SUPERIOR DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE 17TH STREET BEACH SAFETY CENTER GARAGE DOOR

REPLACEMENT PROJECT

10.2 By inspecting, approving or accepting the improvements, City shall not have waived the protections afforded herein to the City Indemnified Parties or diminished the obligation of Contractor, who shall remain obligated in the same degree to indemnify and hold the City Indemnified Parties harmless as provided above.

10.3 Contractor's obligation herein does not extend to liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, damages or costs that arise out of the City Indemnified Parties’ sole active negligence or willful misconduct.

11. RESPONSIBILITY FOR DAMAGE.

11.1 The Contractor shall obtain and maintain in full force and effect during the life of the Contract, contractual liability insurance for bodily injury liability and property damage liability assumed by the Contractor of all claims and lawsuits against the Contractor and his/her subcontractors arising out of or in connection with the Work to be performed. Such insurance as is afforded by the policy to the Contractor for Contractual Property Damage Liability Insurance shall include coverage for property damage caused by blasting, collapse, structural injuries or damage to underground utilities. The policy shall not contain the so-called "x" "c" "u" exclusions.

11.2 The Contractor shall maintain vehicle liability, and property damage insurance in the amount of not less than $2,000,000 for one person injured in one accident, and not less than $2,000,000 for two or more persons injured in any one accident, and not less than $2,000,000 with respect to any property damage involved and public general liability insurance in the amount of not less than $2,000,000 each occurrence or in the aggregate.

11.3 Evidence of insurance including Commercial General Liability, Workers’ Compensation, and Automobile Liability in compliance with the above requirements shall be furnished to the City by Certificate of Insurance. Such Certificate of Insurance shall be furnished prior to the commencement of Work under the Contract. The insurance policy shall provide that the policy shall remain in force during the life of this Contract and shall not be canceled, terminated, or allowed to expire without thirty (30) days prior written notice to City from the insurance company.

11.4 Such insurance shall be issued by a company or companies approved by the City, licensed and listed with "Insurance Organizations Authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to Transact the Business of Insurance in the State of California," and shall have a rating of A- or better.

11.5 Insurance coverage in the minimum amounts set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve the Contractor for liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it preclude the City from taking such other actions as is available to it under any other provision of this Contract or otherwise in law. 25 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND SUPERIOR DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE 17TH STREET BEACH SAFETY CENTER GARAGE DOOR

REPLACEMENT PROJECT

11.6 The Contractor shall arrange for the policies to be so conditioned as to cover the performance of any changes or extra Work which may be required under the Contract.

11.7 The costs of this insurance shall be considered as included in the prices paid for the various Contract items of Work and no additional compensation will be allowed, therefore.

11.8 The Contractor shall either: (1) require each of its subcontractors to procure and to maintain Subcontractor's Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance and Vehicle Liability Insurance of the type and in the amounts specified, or (2) insure the activities of its subcontractors in its own policy in like amount.

11.9 The Contractor's policies shall contain an Additional Insured Endorsement naming as additional insured the City and its officers, consultants, agents, and employees while on the Project and acting within the scope of their duties. For any claims related to the Project, Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be in excess of Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

11.10 Prior to commencement of Work under this Contract, the Contractor shall furnish endorsements from each of the insurance companies.

11.11 The Contractor shall reimburse the City and the Engineer for all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by said City and the Engineer, in enforcing the provisions of Section 11.0 of this Contract.

12. NOTICES.

Any notices to be given under this Contract, or otherwise, shall be served by certified mail and addressed and delivered as listed below:

City of Del Mar Superior Door Systems, Inc.

Attn: City Clerk Attn: Brett Murray
1050 Camino del Mar 8059 Wing Avenue
Del Mar, CA 92014 El Cajon, CA 92020
[email protected] [email protected]

13. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES; EXTENSION OF TIME.

In accordance with Government Code Section 53069.85, CONTRACTOR agrees to forfeit and pay to CITY the sum of two hundred dollars ($200) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond the time allowed pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR will be granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of and without the fault or negligence of CONTRACTOR, including delays 26 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND SUPERIOR DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE 17TH STREET BEACH SAFETY CENTER GARAGE DOOR

REPLACEMENT PROJECT

caused by CITY. CONTRACTOR is required to promptly notify CITY of any such delay.

14. PERFORMANCE.

The City hereby promises and agrees with the Contractor to employ, and does hereby employ the Contractor to provide the materials and to do the Work according to the terms and conditions herein contained and referred to, for the prices aforesaid, and hereby contracts to pay the same at the time, and in the manner and upon the conditions hereinafter set forth, and the City and the Contractor for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, do hereby agree to the full performance of the covenants herein contained.

15. CONTRACT AUTHORITY OVER PROPOSAL.

It is further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that should there be any conflict between the terms of this instrument and the Bid or Proposal of the Contractor, then this instrument shall control, and nothing herein shall be considered as an acceptance of the said terms of said Proposal conflicting herewith.

16. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.

The Contract consists of the following documents, all of which are component parts of the Contract as if herein set out in full, or attached hereto:

1. Proposal

2. Contract

3. Worker's Compensation Certificate

4. Performance Bond

5. Payment Bond
All the above-named Contract Documents are intended to be complementary. The Work required by one of the above-named documents and not by others shall be performed as if required by all. Any conflicts in terms or requirements of any of the Contract Documents shall be determined by the order of precedence set forth in the GREENBOOK.

17. ATTACHMENTS.

The following Contract Documents are attached hereto as Exhibits:

A. Scope of Work
B. Compensation for Work – Contractor’s Proposal
C. Worker's Compensation Certificate
D. Performance Bond
E. Payment Bond
27 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND SUPERIOR DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE 17TH STREET BEACH SAFETY CENTER GARAGE DOOR

REPLACEMENT PROJECT

18. NON-DISCRIMINATION.

Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, military or veteran status, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, or any other class protected under state, federal, or local law. Contractor shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to any class or category protected under state, federal, or local law and shall make reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment, or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship.

19. CALIFORNIA LAW; VENUE/MISCELLANEOUS.

This Contract shall be construed and interpreted according to the laws of the State of California. Any action brought to enforce or interpret any portion of this Contractt shall be brought in the County of San Diego, California. Contractor hereby waives any and all rights it might have pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 394.

20. CONSULTANT’S CERTIFICATION OF AWARENESS OF IMMIGRATION AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986.

Contractor certifies that Contractor is aware of the requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (8 USC §§ 1101-1525) and has complied and will comply with these requirements, including, but not limited to, verifying the eligibility for employment of all agents, employees, subcontractors, and consultants that are included in this Contract.

21. NO WAIVER.

No failure of either the City or the Contractor t to insist upon the strict performance by the other of any covenant, term or condition of this Contract, nor any failure to exercise any right or remedy consequent upon a breach of any covenant, term, or condition of this Contract shall constitute a waiver of any such breach of such covenant, term or condition.

22. SEVERABILITY.

The unenforceability, invalidity, or illegality of any provision of this Agreement shall not render any other provision unenforceable, invalid, or illegal.

23. CONFLICTS BETWEEN TERMS.

If an apparent conflict or inconsistency exists between the main body of this Contract and the Exhibits, the main body of this Contract shall control. If a conflict 28 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND SUPERIOR DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE 17TH STREET BEACH SAFETY CENTER GARAGE DOOR

REPLACEMENT PROJECT

exists between an applicable federal, state, or local law, rule, regulation, order, or code and this Contract, the law, rule, regulation, order, or code shall control.

Varying degrees of stringency among the main body of this Contracts, the Exhibits, and laws, rules, regulations, orders, or codes are not deemed conflicts, and the most stringent requirement shall control. Each Party shall notify the other immediately upon the identification of any apparent conflict or inconsistency concerning this Contract.

24. SIGNING AUTHORITY.

The representative for each Party signing on behalf of a corporation, partnership, joint venture, or governmental entity hereby declares that authority has been obtained to sign on behalf of the corporation, partnership, joint venture, or entity and agrees to hold the other Party or Parties hereto harmless if it is later determined that such authority does not exist.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Contract, which will be effective as of the date of the City’s execution of the Contract listed below.

CITY OF DEL MAR, SUPERIOR DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.,
a municipal corporation a California Corporation
By: By:

Ashley Jones, City Manager Brett Murray, Vice President Date: Date:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
ATTEST:
________________________________
Sarah Krietor, Acting City Clerk
29 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND SUPERIOR DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE 17TH STREET BEACH SAFETY CENTER GARAGE DOOR

REPLACEMENT PROJECT

EXHIBIT A – SCOPE OF WORK
The Contractor shall perform the following scope of work:
 Removal and disposal of existing coiling doors
 Install 8' x 8' coiling service door, motor operated, photo eyes and safety edge, 100,000 cycle springs, 304 stainless steel
 Install 16' x 8' coiling service door, motor operated, photo eyes and safety edge, 100,000 cycle springs, 304 stainless steel
 Install 316 stainless steel guides, fasteners, brackets, inner shaft & hood  Removal and disposal of existing coiling doors and hardware 30 April 4, 2022 Item 07
The Finest Door Company In Southern California
S. D. SYS. INC. DBA SUPERIOR DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.

PROPOSAL

P.O. Box 1386 CA LIC #736878
El Cajon, CA 92022 NV LIC #0060823
Phone 619-562-0224 Fax 619-562-1327 AZ LIC #275024
E-Mail : [email protected] DIR #1000007505
CADGS SBE #2009457
DATE: March 14, 2022
CONTACT: Chris Flynn
CONTACT EMAIL: [email protected]
For: Project:

City of Del Mar Public Works
Attn: Tom Romaine
858-704-3684
[email protected] Revised from 2-1-2022
We are pleased to submit our price proposal for the above referenced project as detailed below:

AMOUNT
SUPPLY AND INSTALL:
1 ea. 8' x 8' coiling service door, motor operated, photo eyes and safety edge, 100,000 cycle springs, 304 stainless steel.

Model ESD10 by Cookson
1 ea. 16' x 8' same as above.

Installed Tax Included: $ 42,575.00
* Includes removal and disposal of existing coiling doors. * Add $28,316.00 for 316 stainless steel guides, fasteners, brackets, inner shaft & hood.

This quote must be signed and returned to place this order CONTINUED….

Del Mar Lifeguard Station - R1
Del Mar, CA

DESCRIPTION
31 April 4, 2022 Item 07
The Finest Door Company In Southern California
S. D. SYS. INC. DBA SUPERIOR DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.

PROPOSAL

QUALIFICATIONS:

EXCLUSIONS:

Powder Coat or Field Paint (unless noted)
Stainless Steel Endlocks or Rivets, 316 Stainless Steel Slats Opening Preparation
Siesmic Calculations or delegated design

ALL ELECTRICAL, CONDUIT, LOW VOLTAGE, DISCONNECTS
TERMS:

Regular: $ 125.00
Overtime: $ 187.50
Doubletime: $ 250.00
We ACCEPT your OFFER and AGREE to be bound by the terms and conditions set forth herein.

BY:__________________________________________ DATE: ____________________

AUTHORIZED AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE
_____________________________________________ CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO.:___________________

PRINT OR TYPE NAME AND TITLE
Prices good for ten (10) days only. This proposal must be incorporated in any contract issued and supersedes all other document. In the event of material escalation, we reserve the right to escalate the price only to the extent of the materials have been increased. The final price assessed at the time of shipment. Net 30 days upon receipt. Invoices not paid when due are subject to a service charge of 1.5% per month, but not more than the maximum rate permitted by law. If an action is filed to collect the amounts due under this invoice, then S.D. Sys. Inc., dba Superior Door Systems, Inc. shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of collections. Respectfully requesting retention to be zero (0%) retention.

Not to exceed 5%. New customers required 50% down prior to fabrication and balance due at time of installation. Credit check required for all new customers. Credit card accepted at 3% service charge.

If the opening is not ready upon arrival, we will charge for down time at our hourly rate. If this jobsite requires a training or safety class, we will charge our hourly rate.

In the event of significant delay or price increase of material occurring during the performance of the contract through no fault of the contractor, the contract sum, time of performance, or contract requirements shall be equitably adjusted by change order in accordance with the procedures of the contract documents. A change in price of an item of material shall be considered significant when the price of an item increases 1.5 percent between the date of this contract and the date of installation.

The terms and conditions set forth above constitute the entire offer of S. D. Sys. Inc. dba Superior Door Systems, Inc. and any additional terms proposed by CUSTOMER are rejected unless expressly assented to in writing. ACCEPTANCE of the OFFER shall constitute a CONTRACT on the terms and conditions set forth herein. Acceptance of this offer shall be communicated to S. D. Sys. Inc. dba Superior Door Systems, Inc. by returning the offer DATED and SIGNED by an AUTHORIZED agent or representative of CUSTOMER.

Price is based on information provided. If anything changes in the field, this proposal may be subject to a price adjustment. Price assumes a clear path to opening.
32 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND SUPERIOR DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE 17TH STREET BEACH SAFETY CENTER GARAGE DOOR

REPLACEMENT PROJECT

EXHIBIT C - WORKER'S COMPENSATION CERTIFICATE
Section 3700 of the Labor Code provides in part as follows:
"Every employer except the state shall secure the payment of compensation in one or more of the following ways:
(a) By being insured against liability to pay compensation by one or more insurers duly authorized to write compensation insurance in this state. (b) By securing from the Director of Industrial Relations a certificate of consent to self-insure either as an individual employer, or as one employer in a group of employers, which may be given upon furnishing proof satisfactory to the Director of Industrial Relations of ability to self-insure and to pay any compensation that may become due to his or her employees.” I hereby certify that I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for worker's compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work of this Contract.

CONTRACTOR'S NAME:

ADDRESS:

BOND NO.:

SIGNATURE:

PRINT NAME/TITLE OF SIGNER:

DATE:
33 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND SUPERIOR DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE 17TH STREET BEACH SAFETY CENTER GARAGE DOOR

REPLACEMENT PROJECT

BOND NO._____________________

EXHIBIT D - PERFORMANCE BOND
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar, a Charter City and municipal Corporation (“City”) on the _____ day of ________, 20___, awarded to Superior Door Systems, Inc. (“Principal”) a contract for the work described as The 17th Street Beach Safety Center Garage Door Replacement Project; and
WHEREAS, said Principal is required under the terms of said contract to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of said contract.

NOW THEREFORE, We, the Principal and _______________________________ duly authorized to transact business under the laws of the State of California, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City in the penal sum of ________________ Dollars ($......................) lawful money of the United States, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH THAT, if Principal, his, her or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by, and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions and agreements, in the said contract and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, on his, her or their part, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to their true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers and agents, as therein stipulated, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and virtue.

Surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the contract or to the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in any wise affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or additions to the terms of the contract or to the work or to the specifications.

In the event suit is brought upon this bond by the City and judgment is recovered, the Surety shall pay all litigation costs and expenses incurred by City in such suit, including attorney's fees, court costs, expert witness fees and investigation expenses. 34 April 4, 2022 Item 07
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, identical counterparts of this
instrument, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed an original thereof, have been duly executed by the Principal and Surety above named, on the _____ day of ________, 20___.

SURETY PRINCIPAL
By:
(Name)
(Title)
By:
(Name)
(Title)
By:
(Name)
(Title)
Signature of Attorney-in-Fact
NOTE: (a) Signature of those executing for Surety must be properly acknowledged. (b) The Attorney-in-fact must attach a certified copy of the Power of Attorney. 35 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND SUPERIOR DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE 17TH STREET BEACH SAFETY CENTER GARAGE DOOR

REPLACEMENT PROJECT

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF )
On, ________________________before me , a
notary public in and for said County and State, personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to within this instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on this instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature (Seal)
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. 36 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND SUPERIOR DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE 17TH STREET BEACH SAFETY CENTER GARAGE DOOR

REPLACEMENT PROJECT

BOND NO._____________________

EXHIBIT E - PAYMENT BOND
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar, a Charter City and municipal Corporation (hereinafter designated as City), on day of , 20 awarded to _________________________________________________________________ (hereinafter designated as the Principal) a contract for the work described as follows:

The 17th Street Beach Safety Center Garage Door Replacement Project WHEREAS, said Principal is required by Chapter 5, Title 3, Part 6, Division 4 (including, specifically, Section 9550) of the California Civil Code to furnish a bond in connection with said contract.

NOW THEREFORE, We, the Principal and duly
authorized to transact business under the laws of the State of California, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City in the penal sum of Dollars ($ ) lawful money of the United States, said sum being not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated amount payable by City under the terms of the above-referenced contract, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH THAT, pursuant to Section 9554 of the California Civil Code, if said principal, hers/his/its subcontractors, heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns, shall fail to pay any of the persons named in Section 9100 of the California Civil Code, or amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to work or labor performed under the contract, or for any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the Franchise Tax Board from the wages of employees of the contractor and his subcontractors pursuant to Section 18663 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, with respect to such work and labor, the surety or sureties will pay for the same in an amount not exceeding the sum hereinabove specified, and also, in case suit is brought upon this bond, a reasonable attorney's fee, to be fixed by the court.

This Bond shall inure to the benefit of any of the persons named in Section 9100 of the California Civil Code, so as to give a right of action to such persons or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond.

It is further stipulated and agreed that the Surety on this bond shall not be exonerated or released from the obligation of this bond by any change, extension of time for performance, addition, alteration or modification in, to, or of any contract, plans, specifications, or agreement pertaining or relating to any scheme or work of improvement 37 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND SUPERIOR DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE 17TH STREET BEACH SAFETY CENTER GARAGE DOOR

REPLACEMENT PROJECT

hereinabove described or pertaining or relating to the furnishing of labor, materials, or equipment therefore, nor by any change or modification of any terms of payment or extension of the time for any payment pertaining or relating to any scheme or work of improvement hereinabove described, nor by any rescission or attempted rescission of the contract, agreement or bond, nor by any conditions precedent or subsequent in the bond attempting to limit the right of recovery of claimants otherwise entitled to recover under any such contract or agreement or under the bond, nor by any fraud practiced by any person other than the claimant seeking to recover on the bond, and that his bond be construed most strongly against the surety and in favor of all persons for whose benefit such bond is given, by reason of any breach of contract between the City and Principal or on the part of any obligee named in such bond, but the sole conditions of recovery shall be that claimant is a person described in Section 9100 of the California Civil Code, and has not been paid the full amount of his claim. Surety hereby waives notice of any such change, extension of time, addition, alteration or modification herein mentioned.

This bond is executed by Surety to and shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 5, Title 3, Part 6, Division 4 of the Civil Code and of Chapter 2, Title 14, Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and said bond shall be subject to all of the terms and provisions thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF this instrument has been duly executed by the Principal and Surety above named, on the day of , 20 .

SURETY PRINCIPAL
By:
(Name)
(Title)
By:
(Name)
(Title)
By:
(Name)
(Title)
_____________________________
Signature of Attorney-In-Fact
38 April 4, 2022 Item 07

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DEL MAR
AND SUPERIOR DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE 17TH STREET BEACH SAFETY CENTER GARAGE DOOR

REPLACEMENT PROJECT

(Attach required acknowledgements)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF )
On, ________________________before me , a
notary public in and for said County and State, personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to within this instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on this instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature (Seal)
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. 39 April 4, 2022 Item 07
To: From:

Office:

Direct:
858-704-3684
[email protected]
Tax Rate

8.75%
Qty Description Service Rental A&E Tax Total
Delivery/ Set Up/ Removal $70.00 $6.13
(per unit)
2 ADA Handicap Restrooms $1,823.00 $10.00 $278.01 $0.88 $4,223.77 (7 x week service)
4 Saturday Service $60.00 $9.15 $276.60
4 Sunday Service $90.00 $13.73 $414.90
Total * $4,915.27
FED TAX ID # OR CA DRIVERS LICENSE # and DOB
TITLE
DATE
Pricing expires in 30 days
City of Del Mar - Public Works
(888) 744-7191
[email protected]
(760) 744-7191
760-290-3376
Joe Rossi
807 E Mission Road
San Marcos CA 92069
March 22, 2022
Confidential Restroom Proposal

PRINT NAME
Thomas Romaine
Project Contact
25th St., Del Mar - Beach Access

SIGNATURE FOR WORK AUTHORIZATION
Project Name & Address
*28 Day Billing Cycle. *Agency & Energy fee will be added to all invoices. Customer’s Indemnity: Customer will indemnify Diamond Environmental Services, it’s employees and agents against any claim, liability, or costs arising from this agreement or the use of the equipment, including property damage and personal injuries, except to the extent that such claims, liabilities or costs are due to Diamond Environmental Services sole negligence. Customer is responsible for damage caused by Acts of God, fire, theft, negligence, abuse, or vandalism, and agrees to pay all costs and expenses necessary to restore or replace said equipment. Failure to sign Diamond agreement and/or replacement of Diamond agreement with a P.O. or contract does not waive or alter Diamond language.

Customer representative must be present at time of installation of Diamond equipment. Damaged or missing equipment or material will be charged to Lessee.

Damage caused to after installation or delivery shall be the responsibility of Lessee. Rates quoted do not include Prevailing Wages unless specified. Diamond cannot comply with any PSA's & PLA's requirements. Prices subject to change due to desired actual material installed, ground conditions and/or accessibility.

Lessee responsible for utility marking.

Prevailing Wage
 Yes  No
40 April 4, 2022 Item 07
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, Acting City Clerk/Management Analyst DATE: April 4, 2022
SUBJECT: Proposed City Council Policy Related to Advisory Committee Work Plans REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council review the proposed City Council Policy 204 Advisory Committee Work Plans (Exhibit A to Attachment A) and adopt the Resolution (Attachment A) approving the Policy.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

The Taskforce on Committee Efficiencies, consisting of Mayor Worden and Deputy Mayor Martinez, completed a thorough review of the City’s advisory committee system and made recommendations to the City Council on how it can be made stronger, more efficient, and more up to date. As part of these efforts, on January 10, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 2022-08 revising the Standard Operating Principles for Advisory Committees which included implementing an annual work plan process where committees develop a proposed annual work plan for City Council approval using the City Council Goals & Priorities (Council Goals) as a guide.

This year, the City’s advisory committees, in partnership with Council and staff liaisons, developed proposed work plans for City Council consideration as part of the 2022 City Council Goal Setting Workshop (Workshop) held on March 9, 2022. As discussed at the workshop, committee work plan items fall into three general categories: 1) Work plan items related to City operations (routine in nature and/or relate to the City’s daily operations); 2) Work plan items associated with Council Goals or approved special or Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects (1 & 2 together collectively referred to as the “City Workplan”); and 3) Committee generated items not specifically related to Council Goals and/or the City Workplan.

At the Workshop, City Council authorized proposed committee work plan items that have a direct nexus to the established Council Goals and/or approved City Workplan. It was also the consensus of the Council that any proposed committee work plan items that are within the committee’s charter, but not related to current Council Goals and/or City 1 April 4, 2022 Item 08
City Council Agenda Report
City Council Policy Related to Advisory Committee Work Plans April 4, 2022

Workplan can be done on a volunteer basis by committee members, but will not be allocated staff time or financial resources. Lastly, City Council directed the Committee Efficiencies Taskforce to work with staff on a proposed City Council policy that would provide additional guidance to the City Council, committee members, and the public on committee work plans and sets expectations for the use of City staff and financial resources related to advisory committee work plans.

The proposed City Council Policy 204 Advisory Committee Work Plans is included with this agenda report as Exhibit A to Attachment A. The Taskforce on Committee Efficiencies recommends the City Council discuss the proposed Policy and adopt the Resolution (Attachment A) approving the Policy if so desired.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:

On March 9, 2022, the City Council directed the Committee Efficiencies Taskforce to return to the City Council with a proposed policy related to advisory committee work plans.

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 operation item not related to the City Council’s goals and priorities.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Resolution Adopting a City Council Policy 204 – Advisory Committee Work Plans
Exhibit A to Attachment A- City Council Policy 204 – Advisory Committee Work Plans 2 April 4, 2022 Item 08
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL
MAR, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A CITY COUNCIL POLICY 204

ADVISORY COMMITTEE WORK PLANS
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar has established various advisory committees to advise the City Council of topics of importance to the City; and WHEREAS, the Standard Operating Principles for Advisory Committees requires committees prepare an annual work plan for City Council approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to clarify in a City Council Policy the City’s procedures for advisory committee work plans, allow advisory committees to work on committee generated items, and set expectations for the use of City staff and financial resources related to advisory committee work plans; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed City Council Policy 204 Advisory Committee Work Plans and wishes to adopt the policy.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, hereby ratifies and approves City Council Policy 204 as set forth in Exhibit A to this resolution; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council Policy 204 be incorporated into the City Council Policy Book.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 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

ATTACHMENT A
3 April 4, 2022 Item 08
Resolution No. 2022-XX

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 08

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
204 ADVISORY COMMITTEE WORK
PLANS
DATE ADOPTED:

BY RESOLUTION: 2022-XX
PAGES: 1 OF 3
PURPOSE:

The City of Del Mar (City) has various committees established to advise the City Council on topics of importance to the City. The City benefits greatly from the many committee members who volunteer their time serving their community. The purpose of this Policy is to provide committee members and Council and staff liaisons with additional procedures related to committee work plans to effectively engage advisory committees and manage City financial and staff resources.

Advisory committee efforts are directed by each committee’s Council approved charter and annual work plan. Committee activities fall within the scope of their respective charter and may include educational outreach and events; drafting documents for City Council consideration; preparing recommendations or comments for City Council consideration; and assisting with approved City operational (routine in nature and/or relate to the City’s daily operations), special projects, and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) work plan items (collectively referred to as the City Workplan) as may be appropriate. The amount of staff time and/or City financial resources required for committee work plan items ranges from significant to minimal.

The City Council established this Policy to set clear expectations for committee members, ensure committee work plan efforts are managed consistently from committee to committee, and to guide committee efforts to encourage alignment with established City Council Goals & Priorities (Council Goals) and the approved City Workplan.

POLICY:

The following procedures should be followed when preparing proposed advisory committee annual work plans and for ongoing management of committee work plan items and related City resources.

A. Advisory Committee Annual Work Plans

1. In accordance with the Standard Operating Principles for Advisory Committees, each committee will develop a proposed work plan for City Council approval annually.

2. Each year, committee chairs shall meet with the committee’s Council and staff liaisons to draft a proposed committee work plan for committee consideration at the first meeting of the calendar year. The proposed work plan shall include a description of each work plan item, estimate of staff hours and City resources required, priority level, nexus to Council Goals and/or the City Workplan, and any additional pertinent information the committee would like to include. The City Clerk’s Office will provide committees with standardized format for drafting annual work plans.
a. City Council will review and approve and/or modify committee work plans annually.

ATTACHMENT B
5 April 4, 2022 Item 08

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
204 ADVISORY COMMITTEE WORK
PLANS
DATE ADOPTED:

BY RESOLUTION: 2022-XX
PAGES: 2 OF 3
b. Committee work plan items will be allocated City resources as described in Section B of this Policy.

3. Committees can amend their work plan throughout the year with approval of the committee and Council liaisons in order to adapt and be responsive to changing circumstances so long as the new work plan item does not require additional City resources. New work plan items requiring additional City resources must receive City Council approval as described in Section B(4)b of this policy.

4. In accordance with the Standard Operating Principles for Advisory Committees, at the conclusion of any work plan items, a summary report will be submitted to the City Council by the Chair to document the completion of the work and findings. If the committee has both a majority and minority opinion, both reports may be submitted to the City Council for consideration. The summary report may be presented to the Council liaison(s), or to the full Council, and will be filed with the Administrative Services Department for the City’s official record.

B. Allocation of Resources for Committee Work Plan Items

1. Committee efforts should be focused on work plan items related to established Council Goals and approved City Workplan or on work plan items as designated by Council liaisons and City staff. Resources for committee workplan items related to Council Goals and/or the City Workplan are allocated as part of the budget process.

2. Wherever possible, committees should prioritize items that relate to Council Goals and/or the City Workplan where the work will result in a tangible lasting change or public benefit.

3. Minor committee efforts or work plan items that fall outside of Council Goals and/or the City Workplan and require little or no staff time and/or City resources, such as organizing speakers or developing informational materials, may be approved by the committee’s Council liaisons. The Council and staff liaisons for each committee will provide guidance on the types of items requiring minimal or no staff time.

4. Committee members may volunteer their time to complete items that are not specifically related to current Council Goals or on the City Workplan but fall within the scope of the committee’s charter, so long as the item does not require staff time and/or City resources and is approved by the committee’s Council liaisons.
a. If the item reaches a point where staff time and/or City resources are required to proceed, the committee’s Council liaison may choose to recommend the City Council consider options related to the committee generated item. 6 April 4, 2022 Item 08

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
204 ADVISORY COMMITTEE WORK
PLANS
DATE ADOPTED:

BY RESOLUTION: 2022-XX
PAGES: 3 OF 3
b. City Council approval is required to allocate resources to any committee generated items, including any new work plan items, that fall outside of the approved City Workplan. This will ensure the item can be considered in the context of the City’s overall work plan, staff capacity, and financial position. c. City Council may take action related to committee generated work plan items including determining the item be added to the City Workplan, deferring the item for consideration as part of a future City Workplan, modifying the work plan item, providing additional direction to the committee, or not pursuing the item further. d. Committees will be notified of the City Council meeting when the proposed committee work plan item will be considered and the outcome of the City Council decision.
7 April 4, 2022 Item 08
City of Del Mar
Staff Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Joe Bride, Public Works Director
Kseniia Izgarskaia, Management Analyst
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: April 4, 2022
SUBJECT: Resolution Adopting the TransNet Local Streets and Roads Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2022-2023 through 2026-2027
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) adopting the TransNet Local Streets and Roads Program of Projects of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2022-2023 through 2026-2027.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

TransNet is the half-cent sales tax for local transportation projects that was first approved by voters in 1988. On November 4, 2004, the voters of San Diego County approved the San Diego Transportation Improvement Program Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (TransNet Extension Ordinance) which extended TransNet for an additional 40-year period.

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) approves the TransNet Program of Projects (POP) list as an element of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) every two years. The 2023 RTIP is a multi-year program of proposed major highway, arterial, transit and bikeway projects. The SANDAG Board, in its role as the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, approves a five-year program of projects to be funded with TransNet revenues.

SANDAG estimates that the City will receive a total of $1,284,000 in TransNet local street improvement funds for the period Fiscal Year 2022-2023 through Fiscal Year 2026-2027.

Of that amount, $665,000 is automatically deducted by SANDAG towards a loan payment for the City’s prior RTIP loan for parts of the Streetscape Project, which is scheduled to be paid off in 2044. The remaining $619,000 will be used for the City’s projects as projected in the revenue forecast (Attachment B). Additionally, the revised estimate for the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 is projected to increase from $17,000 to $43,000. It is also projected that the City will receive up to $280,000 in carry over funds from prior years. 1 April 4, 2022 Item 09
City Council Agenda Report
TransNet Local Streets and Roads Program
April 4, 2022

SANDAG’s revenue estimates are based on forecasted sales and the half-cent tax that is applied to each sale.

To use TransNet funds on City projects, the projects must be included within the SANDAG approved Program of Projects. The 2023 RTIP contains a detailed listing describing the major projects anticipated to be initiated through Fiscal Year 2026-2027. The projects that staff proposes be funded partially with TransNet revenues for the next five fiscal years are listed in the table below. The amounts listed below represent only the RTIP portion of the full amount the City will expend on each of these projects.

Del Mar’s 2023 RTIP List of Programmed Projects

PROJECT
ID PROJECT TITLE FY 22/23
FY
23/24
FY
24/25
FY
25/26
FY
26/27
DM 01 Annual Street Maintenance 0 0 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 DM 02
Local Match to Bridge Retrofit
Projects (CDM Bridge over
San Dieguito River
Replacement Project)
$111,000 $120,000 $65,000 $68,000 $75,000
DM 06 Sidewalk, Street, and
Drainage Improvements 0 0 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
Total $111,000 $120,000 $125,000 $128,000 $135,000
The proposed list of programmed projects includes changes to the Camino del Mar Bridge (DM 02) project to reflect the overall increase in the projected revenues for the next five years. Staff also recommends to defer using the RTIP funds for the Annual Street Maintenance (DM 01) and Sidewalk, Street and Drainage Improvements (DM 06) until Fiscal Year 2024-2025, when the TransNet revenues are projected to increase and be sufficient for all three projects. The City will continue using its local match budgeted funds for these projects throughout the five-year period.

The proposed resolution (Attachment A) provides certification to SANDAG that the City will comply with all TransNet requirements including certification that all projects will accommodate travel by pedestrians and bicyclists, incorporate TransNet funding identification signage during construction, and that the City will collect an impact fee for each new residential housing unit as part of the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP).

The TransNet Extension Ordinance requires the City to expend a minimum annual level of local discretionary funds for street and road purposes throughout the five-year RTIP.

This Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement is adjusted every three years and audited on an annual basis. Currently, the City's annual MOE for use on streets and roads is $602,608, with an additional requirement that $27,766 be spent on specialized transportation services. Since the City’s MOE requirement is derived based on local sales 2 April 4, 2022 Item 09
City Council Agenda Report
TransNet Local Streets and Roads Program
April 4, 2022

tax generation which includes Measure Q revenue, the City funds a proportionate share of its annual MOE requirement ($75,000) using Measure Q funds.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:

On June 21, 2021, the City Council approved Resolution 2021-33 amending the 2021 RTIP for Fiscal Years 2020-2021 through 2024-2025.

FISCAL IMPACT:

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

RTIP funding for specialized transportation and street and road services to meet the MOE requirement is included in the FY 2021-22 and FY 2022-23 Operating and Capital Budget.

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. Each project will receive the appropriate environmental review at time of implementation.

NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

TransNet funds support the City Council’s approved Tier 1 Capital Improvements Projects.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Resolution Adopting Del Mar’s RTIP Projects for FY23 through FY27 Attachment B – TransNet Revenue Forecast – Local Street Improvement Program 3 April 4, 2022 Item 09
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL

MAR, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE TRANSNET LOCAL

STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR
FISCAL YEARS 2022-2023 THROUGH 2026-2027
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2004, the voters of San Diego County approved the San Diego Transportation Improvement Program Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (TransNet Extension Ordinance), which has been amended from time to time in accordance with the applicable amendment requirements; and WHEREAS, the TransNet Extension Ordinance provides that SANDAG, acting as the Regional Transportation Commission, shall approve on a biennial basis a multi-year program of projects submitted by local jurisdictions identifying those transportation projects eligible to use transportation sales tax (TransNet) funds; and WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar was provided with an estimate of annual TransNet local street improvement revenues for Fiscal Years 2022-2023 through 2026-2027; and WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar has held a noticed public hearing with an agenda item that clearly identified the proposed list of projects prior to approval of the projects by its authorized legislative body in accordance with Section 5(A) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Rule 7 of SANDAG Board Policy No. 31.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 2(C)(1) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Del Mar certifies that no more than 30 percent of its cumulative revenues shall be spent on local street and road maintenance-related projects, or that its expenditures are consistent with the most recent TransNet Extension Ordinance requirements adopted by SANDAG.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 4(E)(3) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Del Mar certifies that all new projects, or major reconstruction projects, funded by TransNet revenues shall accommodate travel by pedestrians and bicyclists, and that any exception to this requirement permitted under the Ordinance and proposed shall be clearly noticed as part of the City of Del Mar’s public hearing process.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 8 of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Del Mar certifies that the required minimum annual level of local discretionary funds to be expended for street and road purposes will be met throughout the 5-year period consistent with the most recent Maintenance of Effort Requirements adopted by SANDAG.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 9A of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Del Mar certifies that it will exact $2,688.21 plus all applicable annual increases, from the private sector for each newly constructed Attachment A
4 April 4, 2022 Item 09
Resolution No. 2022-XX

residential housing unit in that jurisdiction (unless exempted under the TransNet Extension Ordinance,) and shall contribute such exactions to the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 13 of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Del Mar certifies that it has established a separate Transportation Improvement Account for TransNet revenues with interest earned expended only for those purposes for which the funds were allocated.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 18 of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Del Mar certifies that each project of $250,000 or more will be clearly designated during construction with TransNet project funding identification signs.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Del Mar does hereby certify that all other applicable provisions of the TransNet Extension Ordinance and SANDAG Board Policy No. 31 have been met.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Del Mar agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend SANDAG, the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, and all officers and employees thereof against all causes of action or claims related to the City of Del Mar’s TransNet funded projects.

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
5 April 4, 2022 Item 09
Resolution No. 2022-XX

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
6 April 4, 2022 Item 09
Draft 02/01/22
Jurisdiction
July 2021
Population3
Maintained
Miles3
FY 2022
Revised* FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027
Carlsbad 114,463 340.69 $3,858 $3,887 $4,031 $4,149 $4,275 $4,403 Chula Vista 272,202 485.89 $7,726 $7,778 $8,069 $8,306 $8,559 $8,817 Coronado 21,381 52.68 $713 $720 $745 $765 $787 $810
Del Mar4 4,268 24.94 $43 $111 $120 $125 $128 $135
El Cajon 104,393 195.07 $3,032 $3,051 $3,164 $3,257 $3,355 $3,455 Encinitas 62,183 167.17 $2,044 $2,057 $2,133 $2,194 $2,260 $2,327 Escondido 153,008 334.04 $4,622 $4,656 $4,830 $4,971 $5,122 $5,276 Imperial Beach4 28,055 61.07 $567 $524 $544 $882 $979 $1,007 La Mesa4 59,966 151.98 $1,399 $1,439 $2,017 $2,076 $2,138 $2,201 Lemon Grove 26,526 62.30 $865 $867 $898 $923 $950 $977
National City 62,099 104.02 $1,774 $1,784 $1,849 $1,902 $1,959 $2,017 Oceanside 177,335 445.39 $4,027 $5,639 $5,850 $6,022 $6,204 $6,391Poway 49,338 169.95 $1,794 $1,803 $1,869 $1,923 $1,980 $2,039 San Diego4 1,430,483 2,984.98 $41,844 $42,127 $43,293 $39,840 $41,306 $42,805 San Marcos4 97,209 174.93 $1,857 $1,889 $1,994 $2,079 $2,170 $2,263 Santee4 57,999 117.23 $867 $892 $897 $773 $815 $854
Solana Beach4 13,838 42.55 $191 $195 $212 $227 $242 $258 Vista 102,928 169.92 $2,893 $2,913 $3,021 $3,108 $3,202 $3,298 County4 505,675 1,953.24 $17,536 $17,684 $18,397 $18,969 $19,586 $20,226 Subtotal Street & Road*** 3,343,349 8,038.0 $97,653 $100,016 $103,935 $102,492 $106,016 $109,557 104,065104,781108,697 111,881 115,274 118,745
Local EMP5 $6,437 $6,481 $6,724 $6,920 $7,130 $7,345
Local Smart Growth5 $7,510 $7,562 $7,844 $8,074 $8,319 $8,569 *Scheduled to be considered in February 2022. **Revenue estimates for planning purposes only. Payments will be based on actual sales tax monthly receipts from the State Board of Equalization.*** Totals may not add up due to rounding4. Revenues are net of estimated commercial paper and/or bond debt service payments5. EMP to be distributed on a project by project basis; Smart Growth to be allocated based on Call for Projects process.

TransNet Revenue Forecast - Local Street Improvement Program1 Estimates for FY 2023 to FY 2027 (in $000s)**

1.Projection of revenues are based on estimate of growth rate on taxable sales as forecasted by SANDAG and excludes interest and prior year excess funds.2. Distribution of revenue estimates are based on the 2004 Proposition A Extension: San Diego Transportation Improvement Program and Expenditure Plan and apportioned as follows: (a) $50,000 annual base per agency ; (b) balance distributed on a formula of 2/3 population and 1/3 maintained miles.3. Population numbers are based on state Department of Finance (DOF) report of July 2021 population; Maintained miles figures are based on Caltrans 2019 California Public Road Data (December 2020). At the time of this report, the 2020 California Public Road Data was not yet available. 7 April 4, 2022 Item 09
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Karen Brindley, Planning and Community Development Director Jennifer Gavin, Associate Planner
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: April 4, 2022
SUBJECT: Initial Consideration of an Appeal of the Design Review Board’s Approval of Design Review Permit (DRB21-018), Land Conservation Permit (LC21- 008), and Coastal Development Permit (CDP21-012)
Project Applicants and Property Owners: Matthew and Chelsea Ziskin Project Appellants: Nigel Hook and Janet Wilson
Project Location: 624 8th Street (APN: 300-252-14-00)

REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Design Review Board’s approval of applications DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 and not set the appeal for a de novo hearing.

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

On February 23, 2022, the Design Review Board (DRB) conditionally approved applications DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 submitted by Matthew and Chelsea Ziskin (“Applicants”) to demolish a 2,091 square foot one-story residential structure and to allow construction of a new 2,000 square foot two-story residential unit with associated grading, landscape, and site improvements at 624 8th Street, in the R1- 10 Zone.

On March 9, 2022, Janet Wilson and Nigel Hook (“Appellants”) filed an appeal of the Design Review Board decision (Attachment A). Detailed staff responses are provided in this report to each of the Appellant’s specific concerns, but in summary, it is staff’s determination that: 1) the DRB thoroughly reviewed and considered the application in accordance with the DMCC, Del Mar Community Plan, and Local Coastal Program; 2) the 1 April 4, 2022 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
Initial Consideration of Appeal of DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 April 4, 2022

appeal does not warrant a de novo hearing; and 3) the City Council should uphold the DRB’s approval of the application.

BACKGROUND
On December 15, 2021, the DRB considered the Applicant’s request to allow construction of a new residential unit with associated grading, landscape, and site improvements at the property at 624 8th Street. At the December meeting, the DRB reviewed the project, received Applicant and public testimony, considered submitted correspondence and other materials, and provided feedback and direction before continuing the item to a future hearing. The staff report for the December 15, 2021, hearing has been included as Attachment B, and the “red dot” correspondence has been included as Attachment C. The meeting video for the December 15, 2021, hearing can be found here: December 15, 2021 Meeting Video
A second DRB hearing was held on February 23, 2022, to consider the project’s revised design that addressed concerns raised at the December hearing. The DRB received public testimony and deliberated the project’s eligibility for approval pursuant to the City’s Design Review Ordinance (DRO, Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) 23.08, the City’s Land Conservation Permit Requirements (DMMC 23.33), and the City’s Local Coastal Program and made the required findings to approve the project, as revised, on a 5-2 vote. The staff report for the February 23, 2022, hearing with more information and analysis has been included as Attachment D. The “red dot” correspondence from the February 23, 2022, hearing has been included as Attachment E. The meeting video for the February 23, 2022 hearing can be found here: February 23, 2022 Meeting Video APPEAL
Pursuant to DMMC Chapter 1.12, an interested person may file an appeal with the City Clerk within ten working days following the determination for which a review is sought.

DMMC 1.12.020(B) identifies the following Grounds for Appeal:

1. Factual Error. The statements or evidence relied upon by the decision maker when approving, conditionally approving or denying a permit, map, or other matter were inaccurate.

2. New Information. New information is available to the applicant or the interested person that was not available through reasonable efforts or due diligence at the time of the decision.

3. Findings Not Supported. The decision maker's stated findings to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the permit, map or other matter are not supported by the information provided to the decision maker;
2 April 4, 2022 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
Initial Consideration of Appeal of DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 April 4, 2022

4. Conflicts. The decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the permit is in conflict with a land use plan, a City policy or the Municipal Code.

In the documents submitted by the Appellant dated March 9, 2022 (Attachment A – Appeal Request), the Appellants’ contend that the approval of applications DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 should be heard as a de novo (or “new” hearing with the City Council). Below are the Appellants’ reasons for appeal with individual staff responses (shown in italics) to each of the appeal request items (shown in bold text):

Appeal Point 1: Factual Error in the Statements or Evidence Relied on by the DRB in Approving the Permits
The appellants contend that City staff did not provide analysis of the neighborhood context to a wide enough breadth and that there were inaccuracies in the information.

Staff Response:

An analysis was provided by staff in the December 15, 2021, DRB report which included all properties in the City of Del Mar within 300 feet of the property located on 8th Street (properties with an address not on 8th Street were not included). The analysis used historical data on record with the City to include the number of stories on a property (one or two), the estimated front yard setback, and the estimated building height as well as an overall average of these categories. This analysis was intended to show the subject project in relation to other homes in the same “neighborhood.” A correction to this analysis was submitted to the Board via a staff memo prior to the February 23, 2022, hearing after it was brought to staff’s attention that three properties were within the 300 feet and (inadvertently) left out of the analysis (417, 425, and 431 8th Street).

On the day of the hearing the Appellants expressed concern to staff that the analysis should have included all properties in the City of Del Mar within 300’ of the property (beyond 8th Street) and that there were inaccuracies presented in the averages calculated. Unfortunately, there was not enough time prior to the hearing to produce an expanded analysis. Staff presented the updated information available to the DRB at the February hearing, referencing the red dot correspondence submitted by the appellants prior to the hearing, offering to return at a later hearing date with an expanded revised analysis should the Board require such information to make their determination.

The Board appeared to generally support staff’s analysis that the relative neighborhood context is that of 8th Street and that other streets and properties within the included radius were not part of the immediate neighborhood. The DMMC does not include a definition of “neighborhood” so the Board’s determination of “neighborhood” for the purposes of determining consistency with DRO sections that are in a “neighborhood” context is subjective. The Board did not direct staff to return with an expanded analysis 3 April 4, 2022 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
Initial Consideration of Appeal of DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 April 4, 2022

of all properties within 300’ of the project site and made the determination the project was not in conflict with the DRO and approved the project.

Appeal Point 2: DRB’s Decision is in Conflict with the DRO and New Information The Appellant contends that the project is in conflict with DRO DMMC 23.08.072(E) - The design will cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value. The Appellant also states that they are working on obtaining a forensic appraisal to document the value to establish the impact of the project on the Appellant’s property.

Staff Response:

This appraisal was not provided with the appeal request, so staff was unable to assess the document and the information the Applicants claim it will convey.

Appeal Next Steps
The City’s appeal process is a two-step process. Pursuant to DMMC 1.12.040 the first step is an Initial Consideration during which the City Council shall consider the written appeal document, any written response from the applicant(s), the City response, any testimony received, and the record from the public hearing which is the subject of the appeal. In addition, both the appellant and the applicant may each have up to three minutes for oral comments. No rebuttal arguments will be heard.

The decision for which the appeal has been made will be deemed affirmed unless two or more members of the City Council vote to hear the matter. If two or more City Council members vote to hear the matter, then the project will be set for a later hearing by the City Council and the determination by the Design Review Board shall be advisory only.

PROJECT APPLICANT RESPONSE TO APPEAL:

The Project Applicants have submitted a response to the appeal, which has been included as Attachment F to this report. In summary, the Applicants do not feel that the Appellant has supplied a reason for appeal that is consistent with the requirements for the grounds for appeals identified in DMMC 1.12.020(B).

CONCLUSION
It is staff’s recommendation that the concerns cited within the appeal have been addressed to the greatest extent feasible by the Design Review Board. In rendering its determination, the Board considered standards enumerated in the Del Mar Municipal Code, the Staff Report, Board Member site visits, submitted materials, testimony (written and oral) from the Applicant and members of the public. 4 April 4, 2022 Item 10
City Council Agenda Report
Initial Consideration of Appeal of DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 April 4, 2022

Based upon facts in the record, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Design Review Board’s action to approve applications DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 and not set the appeal for a de novo hearing.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City related to this agenda item, as this is a private application. The Appellant has paid all fees associated with the appeal.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A- Appellant’s Request
Attachment B- December 15, 2021 Staff Report; DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012
Attachment C- December 15, 2021 Red Dot Correspondence
Attachment D- February 23, 2022 Design Review Board Staff Report; DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012
Attachment E- February 23, 2022 Red Dot Correspondence
Attachment F- Applicant’s Response to Appellant Request 5 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
March 9, 2022
City of Del Mar
City Administrative Services Department
1105 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar CA 92014
Re: DRB21-018
LC21-008
CDP21-012
624 8th Street (Ziskin)
To Whom It May Concern:

I represent Janet Wilson and Nigel Hook (“Appellants”), residents at 635 Hoska Drive, Del Mar CA 92014, Telephone: 619.733.1428. Pursuant to Del Mar Municipal Code (“DMMC”) §§ 1.12 et seq., 2.38.050 and 30.75.090, my clients hereby appeal the decision of the Design Review Board (“DRB”) on February 23, 2022 to approve Design Review Permit 21-018, Land Conservation Permit 21-008, and Coastal Development Permit 21-012 (collectively, the “Permits”). Appellants’ interest in the appealed decision is as persons who were present and spoke at the public hearing on February 23, and who expressed an interest in the decision in writing to the DRB before the close of the public hearing.

The Permits initially came before the DRB for consideration at a hearing held on December 15, 2021.

I. INTRODUCTION.

As explained in greater detail below, and pursuant to DMMC § 1.12.020.B., the grounds for appeal include (1) factual error in the statements or evidence relied on by the DRB in approving the Permits, (2) new information has become available since the Permits were approved that was not available through reasonable efforts or due diligence at the time of the approval, (3) the DRB’s stated findings to approve the Permits are not supported by the information provided to the DRB, and (4) the decision of the DRB to approve the Permits is in conflict with the City’s Design Review Ordinance (“DRO”).

Appellants recognize that people want to live in Del Mar. They fully support the DRO, which is the foundation upholding Del Mar’s character and charm. Appellants support new development and believe the neighborhood is ready for homes to be refreshed. They appreciate the modern look and general style of the proposed house, but believe it can be equally effective as a one-story home.

Attachment A 6 April 4, 2022 Item 10
City of Del Mar
City Administrative Services Department
March 9, 2022
Error! AutoText entry not defined.

The Permits at issue are for the demolition of an existing 2,019 square foot, single-story home to construct new 2,000 square foot, two-story home at 624 8th Street, Del Mar CA 92014 (the “Project”), which is owned by Matthew and Chelsea Ziskin (the “Ziskins”).

Both Appellants’ and Ziskin’s properties are in an R1-10 neighborhood with limits on bulk floor area of 25% FAR or 2,000 square feet whichever is greater (DMMC 30.72.050) and Development Standards for lot dimensions. The minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet with a minimum lot width of 75 feet (DMMC 30.12.070 B) . The Project is on a small lot of 7,015 square feet with width of 68 feet. Both dimensions are sub-standard. The existing lot coverage is 2,019 square feet and, if the Permits are allowed to be issued, a new 2,000-square foot home would still cover roughly 1,677 square feet of ground area (16 percent reduction) not including the second story.

II. THE DECISION TO APPROVE THE PERMITS IS BASED ON FACTUAL ERROR AND ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE DRB.

The Del Mar Municipal Code does not define “neighborhood” except for the “within 300 feet” found in Chapter 30 – General Provisions under Section 30.01.070 Noticed Public Hearings, which provides that notice shall be “[m]ailed to all owners as shown on the County Tax Assessors rolls of real property within 300 feet of . . .the exterior boundaries of the property which is the subject of the hearing.

The 300’ radius for 624 8th St. resulted in approximately 25 home mailings which defines the immediate geographical area of the neighborhood. Staff’s report analyzed 10 buildings (of 25 mailings) and all were on 8th St. The Hoska Dr. homes within 300’ were not considered as neighborhood. The relevant neighborhood consists of more than 10 houses all of which are on 8th St.

Staff’s December 15 report also used the proposed front yard setback and building height instead of the home’s current front yard setback. Ms. Wilson discussed this error with Jennifer Gavin and Matt Bator prior to the February 23 DRB hearing. While they agreed the information should be corrected, there wasn’t time to make the adjustments prior to the hearing. During the hearing February 23 DRB hearing, Staff presented adjusted neighborhood averages which included 3 additional homes, however, failed to include the existing single story home in the averages.

Appellants’ home is directly adjacent to the Project, the only closer home being 612 8th St. However, Appellants’ main house was not included in the analysis, whereas the two-story garage is included.

On 8th Street, there is 75-feet between the Project and Appellants’ garage. This is where Appellants’ driveway and entrance to their front door is located. The front of Appellants’ home is on 8th St. Appellants’ beautiful home, which would be brutally impacted by the Project, Attachment A 7 April 4, 2022 Item 10
City of Del Mar
City Administrative Services Department
March 9, 2022
Error! AutoText entry not defined.
should be included because it is part of this neighborhood. When the 635 Hoska Dr. main house is included, the impact changes. See Figure 1.

Figure 1
 64% are 1-story homes
 Setback – average is 32.09 making the proposed house is over 10' closer than the average setback (Staff report calculated 25.9’)
 2nd Story Setback – average is 43.26’ putting the proposed 2nd story 21' closer than the average (Staff report did not calculate/display this very important number. If they had, using their numbers it would have been around 42’)
 Height – the average height is 18.26 making the proposed height is 5' 6" taller than the average (staff report has 19.9).

Factual Error - Omitting the existing property (624 8th St.) and the adjacent home (635 Hoska Dr.) resulted in significate misinformation.

Attachment A 8 April 4, 2022 Item 10
City of Del Mar
City Administrative Services Department
March 9, 2022
Error! AutoText entry not defined.

Where a “neighborhood” begins and ends is subjective. Boundaries are often defined by underlying conditions:
 an immediate geographical area (within 300 feet)
 city limits (San Diego)
 a style of architecture
 a geographic or topographic features (a cliff, a park)  major roads are logical boundaries (a traffic light at 9th St.)  a city block
 ethnicity
 land use change from residential to commercial or high density  traffic patterns – entrance roads used by residents and visitors When traveling south on Camino Del Mar, the traffic light at 9th St. is a major intersection and turn left to uphill 9th St. ends at Highland Ave. and Hoska Dr. That intersection with Hoska Dr. could be considered a neighborhood boundary. Taking Hoska Dr. around to the 8 th St. Extension is a major thoroughfare into our neighborhood down 8th St.

Every home within the 300-feet of the Project should be reviewed to decide if they are in the “neighborhood”. There are 14 additional homes to be considered, 12 of which should be included (445 9th St., 901 Highland Ave., and on Hoska Dr. 601, 605, 610, 611, 623, 624, 636, 641, 642, and 660), but 2 are uphill of the 8th St. Extension (667A & 667 Hoska Dr.) and might not qualify as “neighborhood”.

Outside of the 300-foot radius, homes between the 8th St. Extension and Nob Ave (402, 405, 406, 410, 411, and 420) should probably be included as well because this route is a consistent traffic pattern. See 2.

Adding these 18 homes to the previous 11 homes on 8th St. is 29 homes and their composition and features help define the neighborhood’s characteristics. See Figures 3 and 4.

Factual Error – The neighborhood contains more than 10 homes.

Attachment A 9 April 4, 2022 Item 10
City of Del Mar
City Administrative Services Department
March 9, 2022
Error! AutoText entry not defined.

Figure 2
Attachment A 10 April 4, 2022 Item 10
City of Del Mar
City Administrative Services Department
March 9, 2022
Error! AutoText entry not defined.

Figure 3
When all 29 of these homes are considered, the averages change. See Figure 9.  74% are one-story homes
 Setback – the proposed house is 12’ 6” closer than the average setback (note additional 18 are worst case)
 2
nd Story Setback – proposed 2nd story 17’ 9” closer than the average  Height – proposed height is 4’ 2” taller than the average (note additional 18 are worst case)
And, all of the buildings at the setbacks are single story homes or a single-story garage which transitions into a 2-story behind it.

Attachment A 11 April 4, 2022 Item 10
City of Del Mar
City Administrative Services Department
March 9, 2022
Error! AutoText entry not defined.

Figure 4
Attachment A 12 April 4, 2022 Item 10
City of Del Mar
City Administrative Services Department
March 9, 2022
Error! AutoText entry not defined.

III. THE DECISION TO APPROVE THE PERMITS IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE DRO.

DMMC 23.08.072 E – The design will cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value.

Reasonable people cannot dispute that a new two-story home being built directly adjacent to Appellants’ home will negatively impact their property value. See, Figures 5 and 6. The question is by how much? Since the last DRB meeting, Appellants have commissioned a forensic appraisal with Otis E. Hacket & Associates. A forensic appraisal is an appraisal done to the standards and needs of a pending court case. The forensic appraisal will document the value of Appellants’ property “as is” and also establish the impact of the proposed two-story home next door.

IV. NEW INFORMATION
The forensic appraisal is pending and will be provided as soon as it is completed.

Attachment A 13 April 4, 2022 Item 10
City of Del Mar
City Administrative Services Department
March 9, 2022
Error! AutoText entry not defined.

Figure 5
Figure 6
(This image is not an exaggeration. The story poles are seen and pink flags circled in red.) Attachment A 14 April 4, 2022 Item 10
City of Del Mar
City Administrative Services Department
March 9, 2022
Error! AutoText entry not defined.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the decision of the DRB to approve the Permits should be reversed. The DRB based its decision on factual error, new information exists which requires the denial of the Permits, the DRB’s stated findings are not supported by the record, and the decision of the DRB is in conflict with the DRO.

Very truly yours,
/s/ Richard R. Rice
Richard R. Rice
cc: Clients
Attachment A 15 April 4, 2022 Item 10
11/2020
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS

EXPERIENCE
Otis E. Hackett & Associates, 1990 - Present. Owner of the firm providing appraisal, consultation, litigation support, and expert witness services to the entire real estate community. Mr. Hackett is directly involved in all assignments as the principal appraiser/analyst or consultant. Appraisal and consultation services include real property appraisals, land use issues, research, supply and demand studies, highest and best use studies, appraisal review, consultation on specific real property issues, expert witness services, and litigation support services.

Specific Property Types (existing and proposed):

Vacant Land: Residential lots; multi-family lots; subdivision land; acreage; commercial; industrial; and agricultural
Agricultural: Row-crop farmland; greenhouse facilities; orchards Residential: Single-family residences; condominiums; cooperatives; own-yourowns; duplexes; triplexes; four-units; subdivisions (including singlefamily residential and condominium projects); and condo conversions Multi-Residential: Apartments (five-units or more, up to projects containing over 100 units), conversion projects
Commercial: Single-tenant/occupant retail buildings; strip shopping centers; neighborhood shopping centers; community shopping centers; power centers; NNN properties; office buildings; big box retail; supermarkets; bank and savings and loan branch offices; service stations; fast-food restaurants; sit-down restaurants; automobile dealerships Industrial: Single-tenant/occupant buildings; multi-tenant buildings; R&D facilities; manufacturing plants; self-storage facilities Hospitality: Motels; resorts
Special Purpose: Churches; fraternal buildings; theatres; recording studios; parking structures
Easements:

Public Utility; Street/Road; Ingress/Egress; Slope; Parking; Construction; Right-of-Way; Subsurface; Conservation; Signage (billboards)
Interests Appraised:

Fee Simple; Leased Fee; Leasehold; Life Estate; Subleasehold; Easements Eminent Domain:

Whole takes; partial takes; construction easements; acquisition appraisals; condemnation consultation; and expert witness testimony
Attachment A 16 April 4, 2022 Item 10
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS

11/2020
Diminution In Value Appraisals:

Toxic contamination; construction defects; encroachments; title issues; view, light and air issues; boundary line disputes; omitted easements on policies of title insurance Woodland Hills Appraisal Group, 1994-Present. Member of business entity which offers real property and economic data to a cooperative consisting of real estate appraisers and consultants. The group provides office space, computers, on-line data services, public records, access to various multiple listing services, subscription services, library, and historical sale records dating to 1984 for Los Angeles County, Orange County, and Ventura County.

Lea Associates, Inc., 1983 - 1990. Vice President. Provided real estate consultation and analytical services for the public and private sectors. Administrative responsibilities included business development, supervision and training of associates, development of appraisal educational courses and teaching of such courses, and ongoing review of regulatory changes in the real estate appraisal industry.

California First Bank, 1977 - 1983. Senior Appraisal Officer and Assistant Office Manager. Engaged in valuation of real property including commercial, industrial, residential (subdivisions, SFR's, condominiums, co-ops, and apartments), agricultural land, vacant land, and special purpose properties.

Management duties included review of appraisal reports and supervision of junior members on appraisal staff.

Marina Federal Savings and Loan Association,_1976 - 1977. Real Estate Appraiser responsible for appraisal of SFR's, condominium units, and two- to four-unit residential income properties located primarily in the South Bay area of Los Angeles County.

GEOGRAPHIC AREA
Mr. Hackett has conducted appraisal and/or reviewed appraisal reports for real property located in the following states: Arizona, California, Florida, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, and Utah.

California Counties: Contra Costa, Kern, Los Angeles, Merced, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Shasta, Sonoma, and Ventura.

EDUCATION
Continuous participation in numerous seminars relating to real estate appraisal theory and real estate practice.

Successful completion of the following CCIM Institute courses:
• CI 101 – Financial Analysis for Commercial Investment Real Estate • CI 102 – Market Analysis for Commercial Investment Real Estate • CI 103 – User Decision Analysis for Commercial Investment Real Estate • CI 104 – Investment Analysis Commercial Investment Real Estate • Core Concepts Review course
• Comprehensive Examination
Attachment A 17 April 4, 2022 Item 10
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS

11/2020
3 Successful completion of the following Appraisal Institute and former American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers' courses and/or examinations:
• Standards of Professional Practice, Part C
• Standards of Professional Practice, Parts A and B
• Comprehensive Examination
• Capitalization Theory and Techniques, Part A
• Capitalization Theory and Techniques, Part B
• Capitalization Theory and Techniques, Part I
• Real Estate Appraisal Principles, Part 1A-1
• Basic Valuation Procedures, Part 1A-2
• Litigation Valuation, Course IV
• Rural Properties, Course III
• Investment Analysis Course VI
• Urban Properties, Course II
Successful completion of the following former Society of Real Estate Appraisers' courses:
• Income Property Valuation, Course 202
• Residential Case Study, R2 Exam
• Principles of Income Property Appraising, Course 201
• An Introduction of Appraising Real Property, Course 101 Successful completion of the following International Right of Way Association courses:
• Course 403 – Easement Valuation
• Course 802 – Legal Aspects of Easement
Successful completion of the following Lorman Education Services seminars:
• Law of Easements: Legal Issues and Practical Considerations • The Development Approval Process
Successful completion of the following CEB seminars:
• Easement and Boundary Disputes
• Title Insurance: Preliminary Reports, Title Policies, and Claims Successful completion of the following courses and/or seminars relating to easement valuation:
• Easement and Boundary Dispute (CEB seminar)
• Law of Easements: Legal Issues and Practical Considerations (Lorman Education Services)
• A Professional’s Guide to Conservation Easements (AI seminar) • Valuation of Conservation Easements (AI course)
• Easement Valuation (AI Seminar)
• Easement Valuation (IRWA course)
• Legal Aspects of Easements (IRWA course)
West Los Angeles College, California Real Estate Certificate, June 1976.

University of California, Los Angeles, Bachelor of Arts Degree in Mathematics, June 1974.

Attachment A 18 April 4, 2022 Item 10
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS

11/2020
4 EXPERT TESTIMONY
Mr. Hackett has qualified as an expert witness in real estate matters and has testified before:
• ADR Services, Inc.
• American Arbitration Association
• JAMS
• Los Angeles County Superior Court
• Los Angeles County Municipal Court
• Orange County Superior Court
• Santa Monica Rent Control Board
• Ventura County Superior Court
• U.S. District Court, Central District of California

STATE CERTIFICATION - APPRAISAL
Mr. Hackett is a California State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, No. AG005393.

ASSOCIATIONS
Counselor of Real Estate, The Counselors of Real Estate - CRE designation Fellow, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors – FRICS designation Senior Member, American Society of Appraisers - ASA designation, Real Property - Urban, currently Certified
Member, Appraisal Institute - MAI and SRPA designations, currently Certified Certified Commercial Investment Member – CCIM Institute/CCIM designation Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, State of California, License No. AG 005393 Real Estate Broker, State of California, License No. 00522243 Beverly Hills/Greater Los Angeles Association of Realtors Southland Regional Association of Realtors
California Association of Realtors
National Association of Realtors
American Real Estate Society - Fellow, 1999 to 2014
Various multiple listing services including The MLS (Combined L.A./Westside Multiple Listing Service); San Fernando Valley Association of Realtors Multiple Listing Service (a division of Southland Regional Association of Realtors); and Greater Antelope Valley Association of Realtors Multiple Listing Service.

By virtue of belonging to several local multiple listing services, Mr. Hackett has access to regional MLS services throughout most of California.

PROFESSIONAL COMMITTEES/OFFICES
Former American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers: Chapter No. 5 Admissions Committee, 1986 to 1989 (Vice Chairman 1988); Southwest Region Review and Counseling Committee, 1987 to 1991; Board of Examiners - Experience, MAI Subcommittee, National Admissions Committee, 1989 to 1991; Chapter No. 5 Assistant Secretary, 1990.

Appraisal Institute: Regional Ethics and Counseling Panel, 1991 to 2000; Board of Directors, Southern Attachment A 19 April 4, 2022 Item 10
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS

11/2020
5 California Chapter, 1991; Experience Review Committee, 1991 to 1995; Representation of Region VII Committee, 1994 to 1995.

Counselors of Real Estate: National Committees - High Profile Subcommittee, 2001; Public Relations Committee, 2000; Membership Development Committee, 2001 to 2010 (Vice-Chairman 2008; Chairman 2009); Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee, 2003 to 2012. Membership Officer, Southern California Chapter, 2003-2004; Treasurer, San Diego Chapter, 2011 to 2014; Board of Directors, 2009 to 2016; 2011 Liaison Vice Chair.

ARBITRATION SERVICES
Certified as Arbitrator, FINRA, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority - 1999 to present. Mr. Hackett serves as an arbitrator on cases submitted to FINRA relating to the securities industry. He has served on over 15 cases either acting as the sole arbitrator or on a three-member panel.

Served as third party arbitrator/neutral on a number of assignments regarding real property appraisals.

Attachment A 20 April 4, 2022 Item 10
City of Del Mar
Staff Report

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

STAFF REPORT
December 15, 2021
APPLICATION: DRB21-018/ LC21-008/ CDP21-012
REQUEST: A request for Design Review, Land Conservation and Coastal Development Permits to demolish a one-story residential structure and to construct a new two-story residential unit with a second-story deck and built-in spa, and to perform associated grading and other site improvements.

APPLICANTS/OWNERS: Matt and Chelsea Ziskin
AGENT: Brian Church Architecture
SITE LOCATION: 624 8th Street
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 300-252-14
COMMUNITY PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential
ZONE: R1-10
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The project is listed among the classes of projects determined to have less than significant adverse effect on the environment and therefore, is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 Class 3 (e) - New Construction and has further been determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption would apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

RECENT APPLICATION REGARDING THIS PROPERTY
On October 12, 2021, the Planning Commission denied a Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight Application (TVS21-001), whereas the Applicant at 635 Hoska Drive requested restoration of a primary scenic view obstructed by Eugenia trees on the adjacent property located at 624 8th Street.

The Planning Commission unanimously determined that, due to a lack of photographic evidence documenting the contested view, the Commission was unable to establish a right of the Applicant (635 Hoska Drive) to seek restoration per DMMC Section 23.51.030. The Planning Commission’s decision on the TVS application has since been appealed by the TVS Applicant (635 Hoska Drive) to the City Council and an Initial Consideration of the appeal is scheduled for the December 13, 2021 City Council hearing, which will occur after the distribution of this report. 1 December 15, 2021 Item 05 21 April 4, 2022 Item 10

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

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 22 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 23 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 24 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 25 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 26 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 27 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 28 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 29 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 30 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 31 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 32 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 33 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 0534 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 0535 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 0536 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 37 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 38 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 39 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 0540 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 0541 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 0542 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 43 April 4, 2022 Item 10 Exhibit C 24 December 15, 2021 Item 05 44 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 45 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 46 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 47 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 48 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 49 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 50 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 51 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 52 April 4, 2022 Item 10 Exhibit C 33 December 15, 2021 Item 05 53 April 4, 2022 Item 10 Exhibit C 34 December 15, 2021 Item 05 54 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 55 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 56 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 57 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 58 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 59 April 4, 2022 Item 10 Exhibit C 40 December 15, 2021 Item 05 60 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 61 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 62 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 63 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 64 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 65 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 66 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 67 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 68 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 69 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 70 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 71 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 72 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 73 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 74 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 75 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 76 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 77 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 78 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 79 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 80 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 81 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 82 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 83 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 84 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 85 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 86 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 87 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 88 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 89 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 90 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 91 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 92 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 93 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 94 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 95 April 4, 2022 Item 10 1 Jennifer Gavin
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 9:04 AM
To: Jennifer Gavin
Subject: Support for Ziskin Family Home - 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 DRB,
We would like to express our appreciation to the Ziskin family for enduring the extensive design review process, all while working and raising young children in our community. Their proposed home is lovely and will be a welcome improvement. Please expedite approval.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Wilson
Umatilla
Attachment C 96 April 4, 2022 Item 10
1 of 4
December 15, 2021
Dear Planning Department and Members of the DRB,
My husband Nigel Hook and I have lived at 635 Hoska Drive since 1999. We have concerns about the project DRB21-018/ LC21-008/ CDP21-012 which is next door to us. Our home is north west of the 642 8th Street and this is the first time this project has been on your DRB agenda.

The Staff report is very thorough and their report identifies the all of same concerns we have. I would like to request the report be amended to reflect the actual FAR of 28.5% (not 25%). I would also like clarification about why the entry of 43 square feet is under FAR exempt?
Staff’s analysis of our neighborhood is excellent. Based on their estimates this two-story is not only “5’ 5” taller than the residences in the immediate neighborhood”, it would also be “6.5’ closer to the front of the property line” than the average setback! We’re concerned about the siting of a two-story house so close to 8th Street.. We’re also very concerned about how the 2nd story affects our yard.

The analysis was based on property lines (as it should be). What wasn’t discussed is the land between the 8th Street curb and the property line. There is a city land which appears to be part of both of our lots (624 8th and our) and this is good for both of us. Even with this bonus “buffer” land, we’re concerned about a two-story house which will be jutting out and looming over 8th Street
We request Staff to review the design feature for the eave on the eastern side of the building Ordinance 30.86.200 M.2 Yard Projections:

Architectural projections (such as cornices, belt course, sills, eave projections, and awnings) without enclosing walls or screening may project into a required yard not more than two feet, provided the required interior side yard is not reduced to less than two feet six inches, and any required yard abutting a street is not reduced to less than five feet zero inches.

Item 5.d of Exhibit D submitted by Brian Church states “other eaves have been adjusted to be 36” or less”.

30.12.070 Development Standards (R1-10)
B. Lot Dimensions:

1. Minimum lot size: 10,000 square feet  7,015 square feet

3. Minimum lot width: 75 feet  ? 72 feet

4. Minimum lot depth: 100 feet
C. Construction Standards:

3. FAR: 25% or 2,000 sq. ft.*, whichever is greater. 
choosing 2,000 sq. ft. (FAR of 28.5%)

4. Maximum lot coverage: 40% or 3,000 sq. ft., whichever is greater  choosing a 2-story at 28% coverage (instead of a 1-story 1,964.2 sq. ft.) The proposed project sites a 2,000 square foot house on a 7,015 square foot lot with a FAR calculation of 28.5%.

The * allows 2,000 sq. ft. This allowance is built-in compensation for the disadvantage of owning a small lot.

And I would make the same choice.

The proposed design has chosen 28% lot coverage when 40% is allowed and I would not make the same choice. Because not just one, but many of Del Mar’s DRO’s would be compromised with this design. A major concern this house does not fit into the neighbor.

Attachment C 97 April 4, 2022 Item 10
2 of 4

23.08.077 – Same—Relationship to Neighborhood.

C. The design is out of scale with other structures in the neighborhood. • Fact – This neighborhood has always been predominantly one-story. Confirmed on page 6 of Staff’s report: “8th Street is primary one-story or where two-stories occur, they are setback significantly on the lot”.

The current one-story house presents an appearance of being in scale with the surrounding neighborhood. • Fact – The current house is out of compliance because it’s square footage is greater 2000 sq. ft.

Bringing the back house into compliance is excellent, however, building a two-story will force it to appear out of scale.
• Fact - A 28.5% FAR house in an R1-10 zone will, by definition, will have more bulk and mass (than the neighboring homes). Stacking the bulk and mass into two-story simply emphasizes their extra allowable bulk and mass.
• Fact – The proposed design is 7.5’ narrower than the allowable building width. This is fact confirmed by architect Brian Church on the last page of Exhibit D attempting to justify a 679 sq ft deck (on top of the garage). The deck “is more than 15’ from the side property line”.

The building will be too narrow, too tall, and out of scale as compared to homes in the neighborhood.
• By comparing this two-story to our garage (or home) is flawed logic.

Staff reported that there are differences between the two structures:
1) our garage is “significantly smaller than the proposed residence” 2) and that it “is not currently visible due to mature dense vegetation”.

I would like to add a 3rd fact that without mature, dense vegetation 3) the top of the garage is only 5.26’ feet higher than the hillside.

Also garage really is not close enough for direct comparison 4) the front of our garage is 75’ from the western property line which means this is 82.5’ separating the two structures.

Because it is nestled into the hillside, the garage appears to be a one-story.

For neighborhood walkers, if they look up the driveway at an angle, the two-story garage is not in their face.

Finally, while our one-story home does have the appearance of being two-stories, it is set back 100+’ from the property line on 8th Street.

There is no relevant comparison between our structures and the proposed building.

D. The design is not harmonious with or is functionally incompatible with the surrounding neighbor-hood in one or more of the following respects:

2. Structural siting on the lot.

Staff report - “raised building pad”
Staff report - “majority of vertical structural massing has been located at the front of the property “

4. Architectural features and ornaments.

Staff report “raised entry feature … appearing to be two-story in volume” Attachment C 98 April 4, 2022 Item 10
3 of 4

6. Existing and proposed open spaces areas.

Staff report “a 679 square-foot, second story deck … where FAR limitation would otherwise preclude development”

23.08.072 D. The design will create an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of neighboring properties. • The extensive deck (679 square-feet) will be intrusive for neighbors to the west. While the current neighbors may not object, all future residents would subject to this design which the majority of Del Mar residences would not favor. Decisions made now affect the future enjoyment of the neighborhood. • From our backyard and entertainment areas, the two-story is at eye-level. This creates a privacy issue. And no one wants to look at a wall.

It is interesting that the lead story is always with the unauthorized topping of the hedge. This is a red herring. Do not be distracted from the major impact this design would have on Del Mar.

We have major concerns about this structure looming over and blocking our outdoor yard areas. Also it would wipe out the ocean view from inside our primary living area. Hedges are one thing … a solid wall is completely different story.

You have our permission to walk onto our property when viewing the project.

Thank you,
Nigel Hook and Janet Wilson
635 Hoska Drive
Nigel: (619) 977-3000
Janet: (619) 733-1428
Attachment C 99 April 4, 2022 Item 10
624 8TH STREET CLARIFICATION
OF TREE DISPUTE WITH 635

HOSKA NEIGHBORS
Chelsea and Matt Ziskin and Family
December 15, 2021
Attachment C 100 April 4, 2022 Item 10

INTRODUCTION TO OUR FAMILY
We are Chelsea and Matt Ziskin
and our family has lived in Del
Mar since 2014 and at 624 8th
Street since 2015. We have four
sons, Jack (9), Duke (8), Bo (5)
and Nate (4) who attend Del Mar
Heights Elementary School and
Del Mar Hills Nursery School. We
feel incredibly fortunate to be
able to raise our sons in Del Mar.

Attachment C 101 April 4, 2022 Item 10
A review of the substantial amount of public record
information available as a result of the rejected TSVS claim and rejected appeal. This information was carefully
reviewed by the Del Mar Planning Commission, City Staff, and Members of City Council. In all instances the claims of the residents of 635 Hoska were rejected. The following slides highlight the facts of the case.

FACTS REGARDING TREE ISSUE WITH
635 HOSKA NEIGHBORS

IT HAS COME TO OUR ATTENTION THE RESIDENTS OF
635 HOSKA HAVE SPREAD MISINFORMATION REGARDING

THE TREE ISSUE WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE DRB
Attachment C 102 April 4, 2022 Item 10
FACT: BEFORE AND AFTER UNAUTHORIZED CUTTING
The view in question was created in March of 2015 while we were in escrow to purchase our home on 624 8th Street, our neighbors to the east (Nigel Hook and Janet Wilson) took it upon themselves to hire gardeners to trespass and cut down 17 Eugenia trees that were over 30 years old and 25 feet tall. They did so without consulting the owner at the time (Al Martin), his realtor (Chiquita Abbott), or the new purchasers of the home (us). The photos below show the damage caused to the trees.

Attachment C 103 April 4, 2022 Item 10
Claims: The 2015 “trimming was consistent with previous trimmings” The trees were approximately 25 feet tall before the unauthorized cutting. Over the last 6 years, the trees have grown approximately 5 feet and are still well short of their height when we purchased the property.

FACT: EUGENIA TREE HEIGHT
Height of the Eugenias on 3/20/2015
Unaltered Google image from same perspective & date
Height of the Eugenias on 3/22/2015 Height of the Eugenias on 7/29/2021 Attachment C 104 April 4, 2022 Item 10
• A survey completed in 2021 as a part of our design process confirmed the trees are on the 624 8th Street side
• This dispute has been going on since our neighbors cut the trees without permission in 2015. If the trees were on their side of the property, they could have surveyed the property and put an end to this dispute immediately.
• Why would the residents of 635 Hoska (who are well versed in city policies and procedures) have paid the ~$3,000 to file a TSVS complaint on 2/8/21 if they thought the trees were on their property.
• Our neighbors at 635 Hoska have communicated on public record of their knowledge the trees are on the 624 8th Street side of the property line (see screenshot from appeal request by Nigel Hook and Janet Wilson submitted on 10/26/21).

FACT: THE EUGENIA TREES IN
QUESTION ARE 100% ON THE 624 8TH

STREET SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE
Attachment C 105 April 4, 2022 Item 10
FACT: THE RESIDENTS OF 635 HOSKA

DO NOT HAVE VIEW RIGHTS

RECOGNIZED BY THE CITY OF DEL MAR
• No Photographic Evidence of a Pre-Existing View: The residents of 635 Hoska have been unable to produce a single photo of the view they claim they enjoyed for over 15 years prior to the unauthorized, illegal cutting in March of 2015. • Claims Inconsistent with Tree Growth Rates: The residents of 635 Hoska claim that in 2012 the trees were subject to a “severe topping below the roofline of 624 8th Street”. If this were the case, the trees would have had to grow 14 feet in the 3 years between the alleged topping and our 2015 photo showing the trees at 25 feet tall. This is physically impossible as Eugenia trees do not grow at that rate, especially considering the San Diego region was subject to the worst drought in its history during those 3 years. • Hearsay: The evidence provided by the residents of 635 Hoska consists of 106 pages of irrelevant information, hearsay and clearly biased letters from friends and employees, and overhead Google Earth images, but no photographic evidence to substantiate their claims of a previous view.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION REJECTED THEIR CLAIM
BY A 5-0 UNANIMOUS DECISION
Attachment C 106 April 4, 2022 Item 10
• March 20, 2015 We visited 624 8th Street while in escrow and took pictures showing the Eugenia trees standing at 25 feet tall.
• March 22, 2015 While in escrow to purchase 624 8th Street, we discovered the trees had been cut to 11 foot tall stumps by the 635 Hoska gardeners at the instruction of Nigel Hook. A report was filed with the sheriff’s department to report this incident.
• April 9, 2015 After much discussion and reviews of a draft agreement about how to handle the trees, Nigel Hook informed us he would not sign an agreement and we should defer to the city’s ordinances. • April 2017 After returning from a trip oversees to visit relatives, we found the 635 Hoska gardeners had trimmed our hedges again without asking us and without our permission. There were dead branches hanging from the hedges and on our side of the property showing a second instance of trespassing and vandalism. A report was filed with the sheriff’s department to report this incident. • November 2020 We encountered the 635 Hoksa gardeners trimming the tops of our hedges again without our permission. A report was filed with the sheriff’s department to report this incident. • February 2021 The 635 Hoska neighbors filed a TSVS complaint. • October 2021 The Del Mar Planning Commission ruled unanimously (5-0) to reject the TSVS claim on the grounds that the neighbors could not provide sufficient evidence a view existed prior to their unauthorized cutting in 2015.
• December 2021 The Del Mar City Council rejected the request for appeal of the Planning Commission ruling on the grounds that they did not meet the criteria to appeal the decision rendering the Planning Commission ruling as final.

TIMELINE OF TREE DISPUTE
Attachment C 107 April 4, 2022 Item 10
“This is setting a dangerous precedent for
me here in Del Mar. That somebody wants
a view, goes onto the neighbor’s yard,
trims it, and comes and claims it and then
brings it before us. I don’t want to see Del
Mar become that way.
-Ted Bakker, Chair, Del Mar Planning Commission

STATEMENT FROM PLANNING

COMMISSION MEETING
Attachment C 108 April 4, 2022 Item 10
1 Adriana Jaramishian
From: Brooke Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2021 1:26 PM
To: Jennifer Gavin; Planning Mail Box
Cc: Michael Urkov; Christopher Garcia
Subject: Item 5 / APN: 300-252-14-00, December 15th, 2021 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 December 15, 2021 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 C 109 April 4, 2022 Item 10
2 Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you. ~Brooke Garcia Attachment C 110 April 4, 2022 Item 10
1 Adriana Jaramishian
From: Alex Kwoka <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 6:54 AM
To: Planning Mail Box; [email protected]; Bob Semmer Subject: APN 300-252-14-00 Application by Matt and Chelsea Ziskin 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;and Design Review Board and Del Mar City Council - We >> received the Notice of Application for Development Permits, and understand that there will be a Public Hearing on 12/15 at 6:00PM VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY.
>> MY HUSBAND ROBERT SEMMER AND I live at 14080 Condesa Drive; we have lived at this address for more than 40 years. We support the proposed Application by Matt and Chelsea Ziskin. >> I am writing this email to support the Application because I am concerned that I will not be able to speak on December 15th and appear in person during the Teleconference hearing. >> If I were able to appear in person at the hearing or participate during the hearing, I declare hereby that I would say the following:
>> 1. I am familiar with both the Ziskin property and their adjacent neighbor’s property (the neighbors who I understand oppose the Application) - not simply because my husband and I live nearby but also because we visited the neighbor’s property when it was owned by John Carney years ago; and because for the past 20 years I walked our dogs up and down Condesa in front of both properties. My husband and I live across the street from both properties. >> 2. I know the Ziskins; I have been in their home, and they have been in ours during the past four years. Matt and Chelsea Ziskins are wonderful neighbors and parents; their 4 young boys are delightful, and our grandson Ethan, age 8, enjoys playing with them. The Ziskins have spent thought and time developing a plan to build on their property, considering how to renovate, remodel/reconstruct, what to do with their small home to enable them to continue to reside at 624 8th Street because their 4 boys know this to be their home and neighborhood. I think they did a great job creating creating space for their 4 boys and themselves on the property lot, respecting the character of the neighborhood. Their recitation of facts concerning the existence and trimming of hedges and shrubbery and trees I believe to be accurate and should be believed and accepted. Conversely, I view with skepticism claims by opposing neighbors based on purported ocean views and what they contend the Ziskins did. >> 3.Finally, I support the proposed Application because I believe the proposed new construction and site improvements are reasonable, and appropriate. Further, the analysis and decision of the Planning Department is professional and unbiased, and in my opinion should be accepted and approved. >> 4. Allowing the Ziskin’s neighbors to continue to argue against the proposed project and to ask the Council to overrule the decision of the Planning Department under the circumstances seems to reduce the Planning Department’s role to simply to a repository of documents, and to create a precedent which promotes lingering disputes, and rewards those who can afford to “do battle” indefinitely, while making it difficult for growing families who simply want to renovate, and continue to remain residents of Del Mar.
>> 5. I support the Application No.300-252-14-00.
>> Alex Kwoka
>> Sent from my iPad
Attachment C 111 April 4, 2022 Item 10
1 Jennifer Gavin
From: Linda Pinney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 9:39 AM
To: Jennifer Gavin
Cc: Chelsea Ziskin
Subject: 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.

Hello,
We have seen the Ziskin’s plans and are fully supportive of the proposed project. We thoroughly enjoy having the Ziskin’s as our neighbors and look forward to seeing their 4 boys grow up on our street.

Thank you,
Cathy Asciutto & Linda Pinney
425 8th Street
Attachment C 112 April 4, 2022 Item 10
1 Jennifer Gavin
From: Whitney Stevens <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 9:07 AM
To: Jennifer Gavin
Subject: Ziskin Project - 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.

Good morning,
I wanted to write a quick note regarding the Ziskin’s proposed project (APN 300-252-14-00). I have reviewed the plans and am supportive of the proposed project. We have lived in Del Mar for several years and had children in school with the Ziskin family. They are wonderful family to call neighbors in Del Mar and we look forward to them building their new home and raising their four boys in Del Mar.

Kind Regards,
Whitney Stevens
Attachment C 113 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) At a noticed public hearing on December 15, 2021, the Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed a request to allow construction of a new residential unit with associated grading, landscape, and site improvements on the subject property, located in the R1-10 Zone. The staff report from that hearing, including detailed background, project information and correspondence, is included as Exhibit A.

At the December meeting, the DRB reviewed the project, received Applicant and public testimony, considered submitted correspondence and other materials, and provided feedback and direction before continuing the item to a future hearing. Following are the comments/requests made by the DRB at the previous meeting, followed by brief descriptions of the project revisions submitted in response:
 The Board requested that the applicant reconsider the structural siting of the structure to be more consistent with the neighborhood and to decrease the impact of the structure on the neighbor to the east.
o The applicant has reduced the height of the front portion of the entryway by 5’ so that the second story element of the entry is now 4’ further to the north than the prior design. o The applicant proposes to break up the materials of the east wall with horizontal siding on the top portion, stucco on the bottom potion of the wall, and to plant a line of Eugenia trees adjacent to the east wall.
o The second-story deck has been revised to include a planter, which would provide opportunity for vegetative privacy screening of and from the deck area and would push the deck back approximately 3.5 feet.
 The Board requested that the applicant reduce the size of the deck in order to reduce potential privacy impacts to the neighbor to the west
o The deck has been reduced by 111 square feet from 679 square feet in size to 568 square feet due to the above-mentioned planters added to the south side of the deck o A line of Eugenia trees are proposed along the west property line.

Attachment D 1 February 23, 2022 Item 1 114 April 4, 2022 Item 10

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT: DRB21-018/ LC21-008/ CDP21-012 (624 8th Street) February 23, 2022
A letter provided by the Applicant further summarizing the modifications has been included as Exhibit B. Story poles have been revised at the subject property to reflect the proposed project revisions.

As of the writing of this memorandum, the City has received one letter of support and a letter from Richard R. Rice, the legal representative for the neighbors located at 635 Hoska Drive, who live directly east of the project and are opposed to the housing project. (See Exhibit C attached). Mr.

Rice has requested that Board member Tina Thomas recuse herself from participation in the consideration of the project. The basis for that recusal request stems from informal discussions occurring at a site visit with the 635 Hoska Drive neighbors. In consultation with the City Attorney it has been determined that there is no basis for recusal. Given the circumstances of those informal discussions the recusal request would not be consist with state law. Accordingly, Board Member Thomas may participate so long as she represents that she has not prejudged the project and will be a fair and impartial decision maker. It is the City Attorney’s Office request that Board Member Thomas make this statement prior to the start of the hearing if she chooses to participate.

STAFF ANALYSIS OF DRO ISSUES FROM DECEMBER HEARING:

Based on feedback from the Board at the December hearing, the proposed project appears to still be in conflict with the following DRO sections:
 DMMC 23.08.072 J. The proposed development locates structures so as to unreasonably, adversely impact upon outdoor areas on adjacent properties;  DMMC 23.08.077 D. 2. The design is not harmonious with or is functionally incompatible with the surrounding neighbor-hood in respect to structural siting; and  DMMC 23.08.072 D The design will create an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of neighboring properties.

At the December hearing the majority of the Board members present expressed concern that the siting of the new house, especially at the second-story, was not consistent with development of other two-story homes in the neighborhood. During deliberations at the December public hearing on this project, Board members discussed how it appeared that second-story elements on other two-story homes in the neighborhood seemed to be set back on the structure/lot, often further than the front yard setback would otherwise allow. Further, a majority of the Board expressed concern that the bulk of the second-story massing was concentrated on the east side of the structure and appeared to be imposing on, and negatively impacting the outdoor areas of the eastern neighbor.

To address these concerns, the applicant has reduced the amount of two story volume at the entry feature and proposes a 3foot wide planter barrier at the second story deck. Otherwise, the massing on the second-story has not changed much in terms of size or siting from the previous design proposed at the December hearing. Additional design changes may need to be considered in order to reduce and re-concentrate more massing at the second-story, so that it would be setback further on the structure and-less concentrated towards the east.

The Board also discussed potential privacy impacts the second-story deck could have on the neighbor to the west. In response to those concerns, the applicant is now proposing to reduce the 2 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 115 April 4, 2022 Item 10

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT: DRB21-018/ LC21-008/ CDP21-012 (624 8th Street) February 23, 2022
size of the deck by utilizing a landscape buffer/planter at its southern and western edges, and to revise the landscape along the west property line. It is staff’s position that a relocation/shifting of the second-story further to the west, more centered over the main-floor would reduce the amount of decking located towards the west and reorient more of the second-story deck towards the street; potentially addressing Board concerns further regarding privacy to the neighbor to the west.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the Design Review Board consider the project relative to the analysis provided herein and determine whether project as revised would continue to present conflicts with DRO Regulatory Conclusions cited by Board members at the December 2021 meeting. If the DRB determines that the revised project remains in conflict with Regulatory Conclusions of the DRO, then staff recommends that the Board provide additional specific feedback to the Applicant and continue the item. However, if the Board determines to approve the project as presented, at a minimum, the draft conditions of approval included as Exhibit D should be included as part of any such approval.

EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A- December 15, 2021 Staff Report and Exhibits
Exhibit B- Applicant’s Summary of Design Revisions
Exhibit C- Correspondence
Exhibit D- Conditions of Approval
3 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 116 April 4, 2022 Item 10 City of Del Mar
Staff Report

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

STAFF REPORT
December 15, 2021
APPLICATION: DRB21-018/ LC21-008/ CDP21-012
REQUEST: A request for Design Review, Land Conservation and Coastal Development Permits to demolish a one-story residential structure and to construct a new two-story residential unit with a second-story deck and built-in spa, and to perform associated grading and other site improvements.

APPLICANTS/OWNERS: Matt and Chelsea Ziskin
AGENT: Brian Church Architecture
SITE LOCATION: 624 8th Street
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 300-252-14
COMMUNITY PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential
ZONE: R1-10
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The project is listed among the classes of projects determined to have less than significant adverse effect on the environment and therefore, is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 Class 3 (e) - New Construction and has further been determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption would apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

RECENT APPLICATION REGARDING THIS PROPERTY
On October 12, 2021, the Planning Commission denied a Trees, Scenic Views and Sunlight Application (TVS21-001), whereas the Applicant at 635 Hoska Drive requested restoration of a primary scenic view obstructed by Eugenia trees on the adjacent property located at 624 8th Street.

The Planning Commission unanimously determined that, due to a lack of photographic evidence documenting the contested view, the Commission was unable to establish a right of the Applicant (635 Hoska Drive) to seek restoration per DMMC Section 23.51.030. The Planning Commission’s decision on the TVS application has since been appealed by the TVS Applicant (635 Hoska Drive) to the City Council and an Initial Consideration of the appeal is scheduled for the December 13, 2021 City Council hearing, which will occur after the distribution of this report. 1 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 4 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment D 117 April 4, 2022 Item 10

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