Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda
VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
April 4, 2022 City Council Meeting
INFORMATION RECEIVED
AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA
WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)
Page: 1
March 30, 2022
Janet Wilson & Nigel Hook
635 Hoska Dr.
Del Mar, CA 92014
Respectfully to Mayor Worden and Council Members,
As explained in greater detail below, and pursuant to DMMC § 1.12.020.B., the grounds for our appeal are based on:
(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; (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”).
Del Mar Design Guidelines
https://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/3448/Design-Guidelines-FAQ-PDF?bidId= Q. How will the Design Guidelines be used by the Design Review Board (DRB)? Will the Design Review Ordinance have less importance?
A. The Design Guidelines will function as an important tool in the DRB’s toolbox to help them interpret the DRO in a more objective manner than currently exists for many situations. DRB members will also have the authority, however, to disregard a particular guideline if they deem it does not apply to a project due to a unique circumstance, site constraints, topography, historic considerations, or other relevant factors. The Guidelines will serve as an important companion document to the DRO, and will not diminish its importance to the DRB or other stakeholders.
Q. Is it true that outdoor spaces such as decks and balconies will be restricted? A. There is no blanket restriction that says all decks must be a certain size. The Guidelines, which will be applied on a case‐by-case basis, attempt to uphold important design principles reflected in the Community Plan and referenced in the DRO. Most covered outdoor structures are treated as exempt from Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations in the Zoning Code. The Guidelines recognize that covered porches, loggias, decks, and balconies can enhance a home’s design, appearance, and function. When these elements are not in proportion to overall building form and neighboring properties, they can contribute to excessive bulk, mass, and scale. The recommendations for decks, porches, and trellises are intended to reduce the appearance of excessive massing and scale, and ensure that the proportionality of building size to lot size intended by the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) construction standard (in the zoning code) is maintained.
1 April 4, 2022 Item 10
Page: 2
*** Brief History ***
DRB Meeting #1 – December 15, 2021
Between the first DRB meeting and the 2nd DRB meeting there were very few modifications to the project. One is that “the height of the front portion of the entryway by 5’ so that second story element is now 4’ further north” (note: only the element changed, not the 2nd story per se).
The other was addition of planters on the rooftop deck “which would provide opportunity for vegetative privacy screen of and from the deck area and would push the deck back approximately 3.5 feet.” Actually the planters are adding additional bulk and mass which may reduce the walking area of the deck and provide some privacy, but simply adding planters does not reduce the footprint of the roof.
DRB Meeting #2 – February 23, 2022
Contents
1st DRB – December 15, 2021 ....................................................................................................................... 3 Staff Report - December 15, 2021............................................................................................................ 3 Wilson-Hook Comments – December 15, 2021:...................................................................................... 5 DRB Meeting – December 15, 2021 : www.delmar.ca.us/141/Design-Review-Board........................... 5 2st DRB Meeting – February 23, 2022 ........................................................................................................... 6 Staff Report – February 23, 2022 ............................................................................................................. 6 Staff Memo – February 23, 2022.............................................................................................................. 7 Facts and Pictures......................................................................................................................................... 7 Second Story Homes on 8th Street........................................................................................................... 7 DMMC 23.08.077 D.2 ............................................................................................................................... 9 DMMC 23.08.072 D................................................................................................................................. 11 DMMC 23.08.072 J..................................................................................................................................11 DMMC 23.08.078 E ................................................................................................................................. 12 DMMC 23.08.027 E ................................................................................................................................. 13 NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER: ...............................................................................................................14 Del Mar Ad Hoc Development Review Process – Citizens’ Advisory Committee ...................................14 Design Review Ordinance .......................................................................................................................14
23.08.010 - Purpose................................................................................................................................15 Unreasonable - 23.08.040.......................................................................................................................15 2 April 4, 2022 Item 10
Page: 3
1st DRB – December 15, 2021
Staff Report - December 15, 2021
Staff’s report for the 1st DRB meeting was excellent and identified many DRO’s to be considered.
Potential Issue Area #1: Neighborhood Compatibility- Two-Story Structure in One-Story Neighborhood:
“These features cumulatively result in a new two-story structure which is potentially in conflict with DRO 23.08.077 C, in that the new house could have the appearance of being to be out of scale with other houses in the immediate neighborhood.
Surrounding development within 300’ of the subject property, on the north side of 8th Street (houses on the south side of 8th Street are in the City of San Diego), is primarily one-story or where two-stories occur, they are setback significantly on the lot.” The concerns included:
1. The proposed residence would be sited upon a raised building pad approximately 1- 2’ 8” feet above existing grade;
2. 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;
3. A 679 square-foot, second-story deck located over the west side of the house, where FAR limitations would otherwise preclude development;
4. 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
5. A location closer to the street than the average of lots in the vicinity.
A chart of the neighborhood was included by Staff. The purpose was to compare the proposed project to the neighborhood averages. There were unintentional errors in this chart (some of these errors were corrected prior to the 2nd DRB meeting).
1. The current neighborhood averages included the proposed 2-story home (not the existing 1-story home) skewing the results.
2. Our home was not included further skewing results. Our driveway, our front yard, and our entertainment areas ALL are directly next door and accessed via 8th St.
3. However, our 2-story garage was included (even though Staff noted that the garage could not be seen).
4. Three homes on the south side of 8th St. (within 300’) were unintentionally excluded.
5. The homes on Hoska Dr. (within 300’) were not included. Staff did not consider those homes to be part of our neighborhood. This doesn’t make sense because those residents were mailed notices and more than 50% of them wrote letters or spoke at one or more meetings.
Staff cited DRO 23.08.77 C – Neighborhood scale – Out of scale with the neighboring homes referencing not only the siting, but also several important Design Guidelines:
C.1 B – Neighborhood Compatibility
D1 – Building Form and Massing
D.4 C Architectural Features and Articulation Design Guidelines 3 April 4, 2022 Item 10
Page: 4
Potential Issue Area #2 Grading:
Staff also pointed out DMMC 23.08.076 Preservation of Natural Topography by Minimizing Tree and Soil Removal. Some of Staff’s concerns were mitigated prior to the meeting and of course, every home in our neighborhood has been graded. However, raising the front of the lot 7.5’ amplifies the impact to the neighborhood which does tie back to DRO 23.08.77 C.
Potential Issue Area #3 Neighbor Claims of Scenic View Blockage:
DMMC Section 23.08.077 H. The proposed development unreasonably encroaches upon primary scenic views of neighboring property. Regardless of whether or not there was a view in the last 10 years, everyone agrees when the hedge is trimmed there is an ocean view. The proposed development will take away all potential of a scenic view and is a permanent structure. This is an ongoing issue, but can be set aside for now.
4 April 4, 2022 Item 10
Page: 5
Wilson-Hook Comments – December 15, 2021:
https://delmar.12milesout.com/video/meeting/e48348f2-3aad-42fa-a745-d8602a30d5c2?t=2h24m54s DRB Meeting – December 15, 2021 : www.delmar.ca.us/141/Design-Review-Board The DRB is supposed to examine a structure’s placement and size, the materials and colors to be used, and, in the case of new structures, the type, and extent of the landscaping proposed. The Design Review Board also evaluates the project’s compatibility with the uses and design of structures on surrounding properties, all based on the standards of review contained in the DRO.
During the meeting DRB listened to the presentations and gave their feedback. The following DROs were raised by one or more members:
1. DMMC 23.08.077 C - The design is not harmonious with or is functionally incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood in respect to structural siting (setbacks, height, 2nd story setback).
2. DMMC 23.08.072 J - The proposed development locates structures so as to unreasonably and adversely impact upon outdoor areas on adjacent properties.
3. DMMC 23.08.072 D -The design will create an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of neighboring properties.
4. DMMC 23.08.078 E -The proposed development fails to limit the amount of design components which unnecessarily add bulk and mass to the building, but which are not calculated as floor area ration pursuant to DMMC title 30.
5. DMMC 23.08.077 D.2 -The design is not harmonious with or is functionally incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood in respect to structural siting.
6. DMMC 23.08.027 E - The design will cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value.
There was discussion about “looming” which was referred to as “a pertinent issue”.
Matt Bator was asked about using vegetation to lessen the looming appearance.
Matt’s reply:
“So oftentimes applicants will propose that vegetation could mitigate issues caused by structural siting by creating screening of buildings and things like that. My suggestion is typically, ‘Well, that can be used.’ That’s a fine mechanism that’s been used by boards in the past. Oftentimes boards will take the other route. That would be since structures last for a really long time, look at mitigation through design versus vegetation, which could be temporary in nature over time for permanent screening.” The only unique circumstance for this property is that the lot is sub-standard which isn’t that unique since the lot is already level and supports a 2,019 sq. ft. home. Due to the 2nd story, there are many feature in conflict with one or more DROs. Members attempting to justify had to do so with an opinion because there are not unique circumstances, constraints, topography, historic conditions, or anything else to justify the feature.
The DRB is not the arena to implement opinions. The DRB is to review a development project based on the existing standards of review contained in the DRO. 5 April 4, 2022 Item 10
Page: 6
2st DRB Meeting – February 23, 2022
Staff Report – February 23, 2022
The modified design:
• Reduced the height of the front portion of the entryway by 5’ so that second story element is now 4’ further north.
Note: only the element changed, and not the 2nd story per se. • Addition of planters on the deck “which would provide opportunity for vegetative privacy screen of and from the deck area and would push the deck back approximately
3.5 feet.”
Note: while the planters reduce the walking area, they do not change the footprint of the roof deck.
Staff’s report identified these design changes and the analysis called out some DROs:
• DMMC 23.08.072 J - The proposed development locates structures so as to unreasonably, adversely impact upon outdoor areas on adjacent properties. • DMMC 23.08.072 D -The design will create an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of neighboring properties.
• DMMC 23.08.077 D.2 -The design is not harmonious with or is functionally incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood in respect to structural siting.
At least three DROs were not carried forward and they are major but the design modifications did NOT address them:
• DMMC 23.08.077 C - The design is not harmonious with or is functionally incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood in respect to structural siting. • DMMC 23.08.078 E -The proposed development fails to limit the amount of design components which unnecessarily add bulk and mass to the building but which are not calculated as floor area ration pursuant to DMMC title 30. • DMMC 23.08.027 E - The design will cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value.
The looming appearance was not included in the 2nd report (or subsequent memo) although it was in the previous report and debated during the DRB meeting.
When I asked Staff why these DROs weren’t carried forward the 2nd report, the response was they were on the previous report and the DRB members knew.
We disagree. Since design changes were made, it could be implied that they are no longer potential issues. Every DRO on the first report should be included on subsequent reports and, based upon Staff’s professional experience, whether or not the DRO is still a potential issue.
This is important. Listing only a few of the DROs after changes have been made creates the inference that the other issues have been resolved.
6 April 4, 2022 Item 10
Page: 7
Staff Memo – February 23, 2022
Just prior to the DRB meeting, Staff issued a memo attempting to correct the neighborhood averages contained in their December 15 report regarding neighborhood averages. This information was still misleading for many reasons which include:
1. The existing home was not included;
2. Our home was not included; and
3. The neighborhood was limited to 8th Street.
Facts and Pictures.
Second Story Homes on 8th Street
The second story homes on 8th St. are fronted by single story garages and/or the 2nd story is significantly setback from the road. 431 8th Street 425 8th Street
425 8th Street 417 8th Street
442 8th Street
7 April 4, 2022 Item 10
Page: 8
Driveway on 8th Street for 635 Hoska Dr.
Garage on the corner of 8th St. and 8th St. Extension
8 April 4, 2022 Item 10
Page: 9
DMMC 23.08.077 D.2 -The design is not harmonious with or is functionally incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood in respect to structural siting.
Current 1-Story Siting Proposed 2-Story Siting (blue)
Staff’s December report:
“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 this design has not changed.
8th Street (South Elevation)
9 April 4, 2022 Item 10
Page: 10
Backyard (North Elevation)
From my Yard (East Elevation)
West Elevation
10 April 4, 2022 Item 10
Page: 11
DMMC 23.08.072 D -The design will create an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of neighboring properties.
DMMC 23.08.072 J - The proposed development locates structures so as to unreasonably, adversely impact upon outdoor areas on adjacent properties.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
11 April 4, 2022 Item 10
Page: 12
DMMC 23.08.078 E - The proposed development fails to limit the amount of design components which unnecessarily add bulk and mass to the building, but which are not calculated as floor area ratio pursuant to DMMC title 30.
Based upon the Design Guidelines non-FAR would be 300 sq. ft. (2,000 * 15%) The outdoor room by itself is 300 sq. ft.! The deck upstairs is close to double that.
The existing house is 2,019 sq. ft. and because it is 1-story, it does not appear to bulky and massy.
The proposed house is 2,000 sq. ft. and because it is 2-story, with overhangs, an outdoor room under a huge deck, and two outdoor staircases, it is the description of unnecessary bulk and mass. 12 April 4, 2022 Item 10
Page: 13
DMMC 23.08.027 E - The design will cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value.
New evidence - Mr. Otis E. Hackett, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS, State of California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. AG005393, Real Estate Broker License (CA) No. 00522243 has been engaged to appraise our home and will be emailing information to Planning.
That being said, undoubtedly and significantly, our property value will be materially impacted.
After 23 years of living in our home and enjoying sunlight, sky, and ocean views, suddenly block walls would be erected between our ocean and our yard. These walls would negatively affect the appearance of our outdoor entertainment areas and our ability to enjoy our home.
A hedge is one thing; a solid wall is a completely different animal (even if screened by a hedge).
Valuation of views are generally determined based on consideration of various factors:
5 to 10%: For a home on flat ground with an unobstructed view of an open space or a park, a seller could add 5 to 10%.
10 to 30%: A home partway up a hill with a partially obstructed water view over neighbors’ rooftops could increase the overall price by 10 to 30%. It depends on how much of your field of vision the view fills, both vertically and horizontally. 30 to 50%: The same home as above, in the same location, but with an unobstructed view.
50 to 75%: A home atop a hill with an unobstructed cityscape or open-space vista. 75-100% or more: A house with a stunning, unobstructed view of a big lake or the ocean.
COMPARABLE HOMES IN DEL MAR:
For the sake of this discussion, our home is conservatively worth $8,000,000 10% percent would be $800,000. Even at 5% - the low end of the scale above, the impact of losing the yard and entertainment area views would be $400,000 which is A LOT of money! 13 April 4, 2022 Item 10
Page: 14
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER:
Another important component is compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. As with view preservation, designs which are harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood are both a City requirement and a frequently mentioned goal. According to City regulations, proposed designs must be “appropriately scaled with other structures in the neighborhood” (23.08.077, C) and must be “in harmony with neighborhood character” in terms of design, scale, bulk, coverage and exterior appearance.
Del Mar Ad Hoc Development Review Process – Citizens’ Advisory Committee https://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/2609/Ad-Hoc-Committee-Report-to-CityCouncil-6-6-2016?bidId= June 6, 2016 - Based on the work of the Ad Hoc Committee’s subcommittees, there was a unanimous vote of the Committee on May 17, 2016 to present the following three documents to the City Council for their consideration:
1. A proposed revision to the Citizens’ Participation Process (CPP)
2. A Community Guide to Understanding the Design Review Process
3. A “Good Neighbor” Handbook for Navigating the Design Review Process Design Review Ordinance
https://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/2609/Ad-Hoc-Committee-Report-to-City-Council-6-6- 2016?bidId=
2. The Design Review Ordinance
The Design Review Ordinance (“DRO”) is Chapter 23.08 of the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC).
See: http://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/422 The Design Review Board (“DRB”) is the citizen’s committee comprised of seven residents of Del Mar appointed by the Del Mar City Council to examine a structure’s placement and size, the materials and colors to be used, and, in the case of new structures, the type, and extent of the landscaping proposed. The Design Review Board also evaluates the project’s compatibility with the uses and design of structures on surrounding properties, all based on the standards of review contained in the DRO. The DRO’s Regulatory Conclusions are written in the positive, meaning that a project application will be approved unless the project is found to be inconsistent with one or more of the Regulatory Conclusions in the DRO. Areas of potential inconsistency outlined in the Regulatory Conclusions include privacy, bulk and scale of structures, view obstruction, neighborhood compatibility, etc. A conclusion that a proposed design element is "unreasonable," must be supported by findings of fact by the DRB. 14 April 4, 2022 Item 10
Page: 15
23.08.010 - Purpose.
A. It is the purpose of this Chapter to achieve and protect a residential, seaside community which is both beautiful and pleasant in character, by fostering and encouraging good design which encompasses the use of harmonious materials and colors, compatible proportional relationships and appropriate use of landscaping, and to protect the citizens of the City of Del Mar by providing a design review process as hereinafter described. As a means to implement the Del Mar Community Plan intended to preserve and improve the City of Del Mar as a beautiful, pleasant, residential community in which to live, work, shop, and pursue leisure time activities, and in order to protect the property values, natural environment, primary scenic views and the aesthetic quality of the community, this Chapter is to be applied in furtherance of the health, safety, and general welfare of the City.
Unreasonable - 23.08.040 - Definitions.
A. For purposes of this Chapter, a conclusion that a proposed design element is "unreasonable," must be supported by findings of fact regarding:
1. The extent to which the contested design element adversely impacts upon the purposes for which this Chapter is adopted.
2. Whether the project requires the inclusion of the contested design element in order for the project to be useable by the applicant.
3. Whether the project requires the inclusion of the contested design element in order to produce a project that is similar in quality to development in the neighborhood.
4. The availability of one or more alternatives to the contested design element that will produce a project that is useable by the applicant and similar in quality to development in the neighborhood.
This project adversely impacts the purpose of the DRO and Design Guidelines. The inclusion of the contested 2nd story is not required for the development to be usable. The existing 1-story is 2,019 sq. ft.
Clearly a 2,000 sq. ft. home would be usable. There is new evidence about the negative effects on our property value. The 2nd story is not required to be similar in quality and there are one or more alternatives. A one-story design would eliminate the majority of issues (siting, bulk & mass, out of character, setbacks, privacy, out of scale, non-FAR, looming).
The DRB may have based its decision on factual error and the decision of the DRB is in conflict with the DRO. For all of the foregoing reasons, the decision of the DRB to approve should be reversed.
Sincerely,
Janet Wilson
Nigel Hook
15 April 4, 2022 Item 10
1 Jackie Rapp
From: Laura DeMarco <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 12:03 PM
To: Dwight Worden <[email protected]>; Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>; Tracy Martinez <[email protected]>; Dan Quirk <[email protected]>; David Druker <[email protected]> Cc: Ashley Jones <[email protected]>; Sarah Krietor <[email protected]> Subject: Item 12: Support anti-nepotism policies for all city-council appointed advisory committees, boards and commissions
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council Members and Staff,
Everyone agrees that nepotism and its inherent conflict of interest undermines public confidence in fairness and due process in city government.
In addition, nepotism creates serious governance issues between Council Members, their relatives serving on City committees, unrelated committee members, the City Manager, City Staff, and committees which compete for scarce staff time and city resources.
Thus, the proposed anti-nepotism provision should restrict relatives and significant others of City Council members from serving on any and all Council-appointed advisory boards, committees and commissions, not just the Design Review Board and Planning Commission.
Instead of approving the proposed amendment which implicitly allows nepotism in Council appointments to Finance, Measure Q Oversight, Shores, Arts, Lagoon, Traffic & Parking, Parks & Recreation, Sustainability, and Undergrounding Advisory Committees and the SD County Water Board Representative, the Council could adopt the following policy that clearly prohibits it:
“City Council Members’ relatives are ineligible for appointment to any City advisory board, commission, or committee.
Relatives are defined as spouses, domestic partners, children, sisters, brothers, mothers, fathers, grandparents, stepchildren, in-laws, nieces, nephews, cousins, and any other persons related by blood or marriage or by means of a “foster” relationship.”
The definition of nepotism should be consistent with Section 3.06 of the City of Del Mar’s Personnel Rules and Regulations Manual in which “members of the same family” is defined as spouses, domestic partners, children, sisters, brothers, mothers, fathers, grandparents, stepchildren, in-laws, nieces, nephews, cousins, and any other persons related by blood or marriage or by means of a “foster” relationship. Why should the definition of a family member leading to potential conflicts of interest for City employees be different than for City Council Members? The Common Law Conflict of Interest Doctrine already requires that a Council member recuse themselves on any item 1 April 4, 2022 Item 12
2 before the Council in which they or their family member would benefit such as appointment to a city committee, board, or commission.
California cities are increasingly adopting anti-nepotism ordinances which prohibit relatives of City officials, including Council Members and City employees, from being appointed to or serving on any City board, committee or commission.
This codifies previously unwritten anti-nepotism policies like Del Mar’s.
Another option is to put this issue on the 2022 ballot as a charter amendment. Most charter cities in California already have ethics provisions in their charters prohibiting nepotism. For your reference, following are the anti-nepotism charter provisions of the City of Carson (see Section 505 and 703) approved by voters and the policies their Council subsequently adopted:
2 April 4, 2022 Item 12
3 3 April 4, 2022 Item 12
4 Thanks for your consideration,
Laura
4 April 4, 2022 Item 12