Del Mar City Council
May 2, 2022

Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda

VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
May 2, 2022 City Council Meeting

INFORMATION RECEIVED

AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA

WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)
1 Melinda Gould
From: John Hoss <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2022 12:58 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Jennifer Gavin
Subject: Ordinance to Extend ADU Pilot Program
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.

Attn: Acting City Clerk, Sarah Krieter
We are opposed to the ADU Program. We realize the original purpose of this program is admirable with the intention of providing low income housing in our community.

However, we have several reasons for our opposition :
1) Our Del Mar community is already densely populated and for many properties ADU dwellings are not appropriate.
2) There is no review process in approval of these projects. Anybody can include a ADU project on their property with no input from adjacent property owners. What ever happened to the design review process? We were the first property in Del Mar to go before the Design Review Board in 1975. It took us over a year and a half to get approval with property setbacks, height limitations, and building on only 30% of our property. And now, under the ADU program, you can do almost anything you want to without any oversight-Not Right!
3) Many of these projects are for rental income for the owner. They have no intention of providing for low income families! Even though there is a 30 day minimum, you know that many dishonest owners will violate that with vacation rentals in “The Beautiful Seaside Community of Del Mar”!!
4) This is a State of California mandate and doesn’t consider individual community concerns. If they did, they could provide ample low income housing in Del Mar at the state-owed fair grounds. They could replace horse stalls for people stalls! Let them put their money where their mouth is!
5) The four foot setback from the property line is completely inadequate! That is basically “on the property line”. It should be a minimum of 12 feet for reasonable privacy.
6) Lastly, we have a proposed ADU by our next door neighbor. Their proposed location is in their backyard, which normally would be OK. However, because of our property configuration, the building will be in our frontyard, adjacent to our driveway! Not a proper location, but permitted “without review”! Not Right! Put yourself in in our situation. How would you feel if this was happening to you? Thank you for permitting comments on a very important issue in our community.

We will tune in on Monday, May 2nd for the hearing.

Aloha, John & Sandy Hoss, (858)755-2347
Sent from my iPad
May 2, 2022 Item 08
1 Melinda Gould
From: Mark Maggenti <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 11:11 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: red dot - 624 8th st. 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.

I would like to express my support for the design approval for this project, as approved by the Design Review Board by a 5-2 vote. I would encourage the City Council to be very conservative in overruling the Design Review Board’s recommendations, especially in cases where the decision of the DRB is not close, as evidenced by the decisive vote in this case. I urge the city council not to overrule the DRB decision.

Thank You,
Mark Maggenti,
234 10th Street
May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Linda Pinney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 8:58 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot - 624 8th St - 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 sincerely hope that the City will uphold the DRB’s careful and thoughtful decision to approve this young family’s home. They have been through the ringer and have more than earned the opportunity to start building their forever home in our sweet little town…without more contention.

Respectfully submitted,
Linda Pinney & Cathy Asciutto
425 8th Street
May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Sarah Krietor
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 12:40 PM
To: Sarah Krietor
Cc: Richard Rice; Nigel Hook
Subject: Regarding DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012
Attachments: DRB021-18_CityCouncilMeeting.pdf; AttachmentA.1 _OtisHacket_MemoToFile_OralReport.pdf; AttachmentA.2_Otis Hackett CV 11-20.pdf; AttachmentA.3_Otis Hackett Clients 11-20-b.pdf
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 Sarah,
Please find four attached documents for the upcoming City Council meeting.

Thank you, Janet
May 2, 2022 Item 09
April 28, 2022
Dear City Councilmembers,
As you know, Del Mar is a unique village with a well-established Community Plan (established in 1976/amended in 1985). The Community Plan is the constitution of Del Mar. The Design Review Ordinance (“DRO”) is the implementation of our Community Plan and is supplemented by the Design Guidelines (Nov 2017).

When an ordinance is adopted, it becomes an established law in Del Mar.

In essence, this means that every project must be reviewed in accordance with the rules, regulations and laws that are in effect now, irrespective of possible, requested, or pending changes that may occur in the future.

Until the rules and regulations are changed, people must be able to rely on the current rules and, in so doing, plan, apply for, and develop projects which are consistent with the established law. The citizens of Del Mar must be treated fairly and equally with respect to that law.

A design element will be deemed “unreasonable” when findings of fact are made based on any one of the following four criteria:

1. The extent to which the contested design element adversely impacts upon the purposes for which this [Design Review] 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 usable by the applicant and similar in quality to development in the neighborhood.

The City Council has the authority to disregard a particular DRO guideline if they deem it does not apply to a project for any of the following reasons:
• a unique circumstance,
• site constraints,
• topography,
• historic considerations,
• or other relevant fact.

Does this project have:
• unique circumstances?
o Yes, this is a substandard lot for Zone R1-10 (in both size and width) at 70% of the minimum size requirement.
o This project chooses to include the “extra” FAR of 246 SF (allowed due to substandard lot size) May 2, 2022 Item 09
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 2
o There is “extra” city land (between the street and property line) giving the appears of a deeper lot.
• site constraints?
o No, this is a flat buildable lot which already supports a single story, 2,019 SF home. • topography?
o Yes, the southeast corner is below street level with possible drainage concerns. • historic considerations?
o None that we are aware of.
• other relevant facts?
o None that we are aware of.

Nigel and I support new development, we like the style of this design, the architecture is beautiful, and the Ziskins have generally been good neighbors. However, we are vehemently opposed to a new two-story structure on what is a substandard lot. Why? Because placing a two-story structure anywhere on that substandard lot results in numerous DRO and Design Guideline violations.

Nigel and I object to the following design elements:
• The second story.
• The change in elevation.
• The bulk and mass.

Based on the attached data, the following conclusions may be drawn:

1. There are many alternatives to a second story.

2. Drainage issues can be resolved without raising the elevation 7.7 feet.

3. The project does not require a second story to be similar to this neighborhood.

4. The project does not require a second story to be usable.

5. The design does not require a 600 square foot deck with a 300 square foot outdoor room to be useable.

6. The adverse impact has already been felt. Our neighborhood is polarized. The project, as designed, will have significant adverse impacts as detailed below.

It should be kept in mind that the Property has NEVER had an ocean view and that a new home does not require a second story to be avant-garde and functional.

Nigel and I support the Community Plan and we respect the DRO and DRB processes. Thank you very much for your time,
Janet Wilson | 619.733.1428 | [email protected]
Nigel Hook | 619.977.3000 | [email protected]
635 Hoska Dr., Del Mar, CA 92014
May 2, 2022 Item 09
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 3

23.08.072 Regulatory Conclusions – Generally

23.08.072 E. The design will cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate material in appearance or value. (Emphasis added.)
This project would result in a structure that would be visually imposing and loom between over our property and between the sky and ocean. The impact would be real. And our property value would be significantly impacted.

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 provided a Memo to File, his CV, and a partial Client List.

Refer to attachments:

1. AttachmentA.1_OtisHacket_MemoToFile_OralReport.pdf

2. AttachmentA.2_Otis Hackett CV 11-20.pdf

3. AttachmentA.3_Otis Hackett Clients 11-20-b.pdf
May 2, 2022 Item 09
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 4

23.08.072 J. The proposed development locates structures so as to unreasonably, adversely impact upon outdoor areas on adjacent properties. (Emphasis added.) In 1999, Nigel and I were fortunate to be able to move into this beautiful home. We’ve enjoyed entertaining friends, family, and co-workers. Our primary outdoor entertainment area has greenery, open air, blue sky, sunsets, and ocean views to the west.

From anywhere in our lawn, we see only the tops of the single-story homes. There is light and air all around. From our lawn, there are ocean views over and between the existing single-story roofs and trees.

Every time I walk from the driveway to our home, I admire our view. We entertain frequently. During our many gatherings, whether playing croquet on the lawn or entertaining on the deck while sitting in our gazebo, Nigel and I have counted our blessings.

From my kitchen table (where I now work every day), I am able to look up and out seeing through the large door and windows which were installed in 2011 to optimize the light and air in our primary living area. There is sunlight and blue skies with vegetation blowing in the breeze. However, now when I look up, I see story poles. Those poles are telling a gloomy tale that 100% of the sunlight and blue sky would be forever obliterated.

After 23 years, walls would be erected between our lawn, our outdoor entertainment areas, and our primary living area. A hedge is one thing; a solid wall is something completely different. Vegetation can come and go but solid walls are forever.

The Applicant’s Property has never had an ocean view. Erecting a two-story structure will unreasonably, adversely impact our outdoor areas in order to gain a view the Property has never had.

The proposed structure is looming over our croquet court, it is visually imposing, and it would be permanent.
• Looming - appear as a shadowy form, especially one that is large or threatening. • Imposing - to force into the company or on the attention of another. • Permanent - lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely.

It doesn’t matter how pretty a wall is. It is still a wall where there has never been a wall.

It does not matter how much screening vegetation is added. It is still a solid wall where there has never been a wall.

After 23 years it would be gut-wrenching to have to walk from my driveway to my front door having to see a two-story structure which stole our prized ocean views.

The adverse impacts are extreme and would completely change the existing quality of life at our home.

May 2, 2022 Item 09
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 5
Currently, very little of the 624 roofline is visible.

HALF of the first floor would suddenly be visible and all of the second floor.

We are now Ocean Aware. We do not want to become Wall Aware.

May 2, 2022 Item 09
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 6

23.08.076 Regulatory Conclusions – Topography and Landscaping

23.08.076 B. The proposed grading or vegetation changes will unreasonably, adversely impact upon neighboring, developed areas. (Emphasis added.)
Design Guideline – Chapter 2.C. - Site Planning and Design C.5 – Grading – Minimize the amount of grading on a site to maintain the existing contours continuing throughout the neighborhood. Refer to the Land Conservation Ordinance of the Municipal Code, Chapter

23.33, to ensure that development results in minimum disturbances of existing or natural terrain. (Emphasis added.)
C.5.A. Siting of a new home or ground-level addition should be located to avoid excessive alteration of grade or the need for soil retention. Avoid physical (erosion), visual, and/or other impacts by incorporating the following methods into grading for a development.

Grading of any site, based upon the percent of the natural slope, should follow these standards.

C.5.a.2 Grading of any site, based upon the percent of the natural slope, should follow these standards.

C.5.a.2.a 0-15% [natural slope] Redistribution of earth over larger areas may be permitted. (Emphasis added.) May 2, 2022 Item 09
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 7

GRADING
Grading is not story poled, but it should be. The finished floor (FF) is now 243.3 feet with the top of the chimney at 255.64 feet. The current height including the chimney just over 12 feet.

The grading plan proposes 6 CY of cut (1’ maximum) and 499 Cubic Yards of fill (7.6’ Maximum cut).

This massive amount of fill on an already graded lot is pretty shocking:

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). (Emphasis added.)

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

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

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

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

From the December 15, 2021 Staff Report:
“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).” What? This is a graded, buildable lot. The natural topography was compromised many years ago.

Why is over 7.5 feet of fill and a building pad raised over 2.5 feet being proposed? So, what does 7 feet look like?
May 2, 2022 Item 09
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 8
Again, from the December 15, 2021 Staff Report:
“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.” (Emphasis added).

May 2, 2022 Item 09
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 9
Over the last 23 years of living next door, we are not aware of any drainage issues. However, poor drainage can be a problem and should be addressed during any project.

However, raising the elevation to avoid using a pump is not the only option.

There are many inexpensive alternatives which do not require a pump OR a drastic change in elevation. A dry well system is just as effective and would be less expensive than the proposed grading of 7.64 feet of earth.

May 2, 2022 Item 09
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 10

23.08.076 B. The proposed grading or vegetation changes will unreasonably, adversely impact upon neighboring, developed areas. (Emphasis added.)

VEGETATION
Currently, 93% of California is considered to be in a severe or extreme drought.

This project is relying heavily on 13-foot hedges along 3 sides of the lot and many long planter boxes on top of the roof deck. These landscaping features attempt to minimize the appearance of the unreasonable height, bulk and mass of the structure, and to create privacy.

During the hearing before the DRB on December 15, 2021, Matt Bator, Del Mar’s Senior Planner, was asked about using vegetation to “lessen” bulk and mass and its looming effect. He replied:
“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.” (Emphasis added.)
Yellow is the location of 13-foot tall hedging. Orange are the deck planters.

All of this landscaping is directly related to the need to screen the proposed second story! May 2, 2022 Item 09
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 11

23.08.077 Regulatory Conclusions – Relationship to Neighborhood

23.08.077 C. The design is out of scale with other structures in the neighborhood. (Emphasis added.) On any substandard lot, should the design choose to include the “bonus” FAR (in this case 246 square feet), by definition, the design – whether it be a one-story or a two-story – will be out of scale with the neighborhood.

This is a fact. The design goal should be to minimize the impact of the extra FAR.

The Community Plan encourages single-story development in areas where two-story construction would be disruptive to neighborhood character and scale of development.

NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER:

Another important consideration is compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. According to City regulations, proposed designs must be “appropriately scaled with other structures in the neighborhood” (23.08.77 C) in terms of design, scale, bulk, coverage and exterior appearance.

Quibbling over what percent of our neighborhood is single-story vs two-story is not very interesting.

Quibbling over which homes are in our neighborhood is slightly more interesting BUT problematic because Del Mar does not define “neighborhood”. In broad terms, this is the "North Hills District'' (see page 55 of the General Plan), described as a very large neighborhood and encompasses many streets on the hill.

Notice mailings are only sent to neighbors within 300 feet and, for this project, most of the neighbors within that 300-foot radius from the Property have expressed opinions (either for or against). And a neighborhood can be identified by walking and traffic patterns (within a reasonable distance).

Details - Section B – Map of Neighborhood
Details - Section C – Chart of 29 Homes in the Neighborhood Details - Section D – Colorful Map of Neighborhood Homes From the property line, the project’s garage is setback 21 feet (if you add in the “free” right-of-way land it is 39 feet from the road) and the second-story is set a little further back. Both the garage and the second story are very close to the minimum setback. This is inconsistent with the few other two-story homes on 8th Street where the second stories are fronted by single story garages.

May 2, 2022 Item 09
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 12
The few two-story homes on 8th Street are fronted by single-story garages or entrance

23.08.077 C. The design is out of scale with other structures in the neighborhood.

Two- story homes on 8th St. are all fronted by single-story garages. 431 8th Street 425 8th Street
425 8th Street & 417 8th Street 442 8th Street
Our house is directly next door. The driveway fronts on 8th Street with the garage on the corner.

May 2, 2022 Item 09
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 13

23.08.077 D. The design is not harmonious with or is functionally incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood in one or more of the following respects (Emphasis added):

2. Structural siting on the lot
*
Current One-Story Siting Proposed Two-Story Siting (blue) The current siting has the building at an angle which reduces the visual impact from the street. The proposed siting will have a front facing, flat impact.
“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” was stated by Planning in the December 15, 2021 staff report. The no-man’s land between the property line and road does diminish the appearance but it is still out of scale with the neighborhood.

Design Guidelines
C.1 D. – Neighborhood Compatibility Design Guidelines
In cases where setbacks are varied in a neighborhood, new homes should match those of adjacent homes.

D.1 – Building Form and Massing
Minimize the visual impact on the site and surrounding neighborhood by blending the form, mass, and profile of individual homes in a way that respects the natural terrain and neighborhood character.

May 2, 2022 Item 09
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 14

23.08.077 E. The component elements of the design are not in proportion to one another. (Emphasis added.) Visually you can see that the structure is out of balance for the lot. 8th Street (South Elevation)
Backyard (North Elevation)
From my Yard (East Elevation)
West Elevation
May 2, 2022 Item 09
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 15

23.08.078 Regulatory Conclusions – Building Design

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 (FAR) pursuant to DMMC Title 30, the Zone Code. (Emphasis added.)
Design Guidelines D.3.A.2:

Not more than 15 percent if the lot’s current maximum allowable Bulk Floor Area is between 1,501 square feet and 2,500 square feet.

The lot’s allowable Bulk Floor Area is 2,000 square feet. Fifteen percent is 300 square feet.

The size of the outdoor room alone is 300 square feet.

May 2, 2022 Item 09
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 16
The 300 square foot outdoor room and 400 square foot garage are covered by a rooftop patio which is flanked by large planters. And there are covered entrances, roof overhangs and a chimney. In addition, there are two outdoor staircases and one internal staircase… all of these elements are to support a 1,600 square foot house! *** Non-FAR ***
The current one-story home barely has any non-FAR (just a covered entrance?).

The proposed design creates over 1,000 square feet of non-FAR (a huge increase) and 50% of the allowable FAR.

The majority of the non-FAR is a direct result of the oversized deck and covered patio. The covered patio is basically another room for this house.

This significant increase of non-FAR creates unnecessary bulk and mass on the lot. *** Lot Coverage ***
The current one-story home has a lot coverage of 28.78%.

The proposed two-story has a lot coverage of 28.51%.

The footprint is not being substantially reduced. The outdoor room and second story are extraneous bulk and mass being added to this lot, into our neighborhood, and are not required for a usable house.

The existing house is 2,019 square feet, but since it is one-story, currently bulk and mass are not issues. The proposed house is 2,000 square feet and because it is two-story, with overhangs, an outdoor room under a huge deck, and two outdoor staircases, it is the definition of unnecessary bulk and mass. A second story requires an indoor staircase which requires square footage and reduces the livable space of this 1,600 square foot.

This design creates a much larger footprint than it generates in floor area! Pink is proposed roof top deck. Blue indicate external staircases.

May 2, 2022 Item 09
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 17
While the current neighbors may not outright object, all future residents would be subjected to the adverse impacts of this design. The majority of Del Mar residents would not favor this deck. Decisions made now affect the future enjoyment of the neighborhood.

Del Mar Design Guidelines
https://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/3448/Design-Guidelines-FAQ-PDF?bidId= 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. (Emphasis added.)

23.08.072 F. The design will discourage occupancy, investment or orderly development in the neighborhood. (Emphasis added.)
In this context, “orderly” means governed by law and regulations.

Orderly development is important because when the DRO is not adhered to, the wrong precedent is set.

This triggers a domino effect and subsequent development in the neighborhood may become disorderly.

This project would be a perfect example of disorderly development

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

Building a two-story would forever more block the ocean view from our primary living area. The view has existed since we purchased our home. Litigation is currently pending with both the Ziskins and the City of Del Mar to establish this fact. If allowed to proceed before that litigation has been concluded, the proposed development will result in the permanent elimination of our view before we’ve had the opportunity to have a full and fair hearing on the subject.

May 2, 2022 Item 09
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 18

23.08.077 Regulatory Conclusions – Relationship to Neighborhood

23.08.077 F. The design would adversely affect the lighting or noise quality of the local neighborhood. (Emphasis added.)

23.08.072 D. The design will create an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of neighboring properties. (Emphasis added.)
Privacy is more than the visual invasion of your property.

The only indoor living area in the proposed development is the upper floor which has a very large door and windows that open onto a very large deck. The size of this deck could comfortably host dozens of people. Below the deck is a large “outdoor” room which has the potential to quickly and easily become a non-FAR fully enclosed patio simply by adding a couple of heaters and roller blinds. Suddenly there is a TV/video/game room and the potential for more sound.

All of the outdoor areas - elevated deck/outdoor room/pathway to spa - are concentrated along the western property line. All these high activity areas have the potential to increase the sound coming from the Property on a daily basis.

Setting aside the issues of bulk and mass, it is believed that a large number of Del Mar residents would object to such a large deck based only on privacy considerations. When the vegetation is sparse or fails, people on the deck will have a view directly into the backyard and interior of the home at 612 8th Street.

May 2, 2022 Item 09
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 19
Details - Section B – Map of Neighborhood
The traffic light at Camino Del Mar and 9th St. is a major intersection. Turning left goes to Highland Ave. and Hoska Dr. That intersection might be considered a neighborhood boundary because Hoska Dr. up to the 8th St.

Extension to 8th St. is a common thoroughfare. From the 8th St. Extension down to Nob Ave is also a consistent traffic pattern in our neighborhood.

The composition and features of 29 homes define our neighborhoods characteristics.

May 2, 2022 Item 09
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 20
Details - Section C – Chart of 29 Neighborhood Homes
Number Street Stories Setback 2nd Story Setback Height
1 417 8th Street 1 20 15
2 425 8th Street 2 20 41.50 23
3 428 8th Street 1 29 15.5
4 431 8th Street 2 20 51.03 24
5 434 8th Street 1 32 15
6 442 8th Street 2 45 63.50 22
7 450 8th Street 1 20 15
8 612 8th Street 1 27 10.66
9 624 Current 8th Street 1 26 12
11 635 Hoska Dr 1 97 24
11 635 Garage Hoska Dr 2 28 28 24.66
12 445 9th 2 20 20 26
13 901 Highland 2 30 20 26
14 601 Hoska 1 30 15
15 605 Hoska 1 27 15
16 610 Hoska 1 37 15
17 611 Hoska 1 22 15
18 623 Hoska 1 36 15
19 624 Hoska 1 21 15
20 636 Hoska 1 40 15
21 641 Hoska 1 27 15
22 642 Hoska 1 34 15
23 660 Hoska 1 36 15
na 667A Hoska - - - - - - - -
na 667 Hoska - - - - - - - -
24 402 8th (to Nob) 1 66 15
25 405 8th (to Nob) 2 20 60 26
26 406 8th (to Nob) 1 30 15
27 410 8th (to Nob) 1 29 15
28 411 8th (to Nob) 2 20 45 26
29 420 8th (to Nob) 1 33 15
21 1-story
8 2-story 922.00 329.03 514.82
Counted 29 29 8 29
Percentages 73.9% 1-story

26.1% 2-story 31.79 41.13 17.75
624 Proposed 8th Street 2 21.2 22 24
Difference 73.9% 1-story -10.59 -19.13 6.25
Setback 2nd Story Setback Height
(note: if a setback or height was unknown, min/max used for the worst case scenario) • 74% are one-story homes
• Setback – the proposed house is 10' 6” closer than the average setback (includes 18 worst case) • 2nd Story Setback - proposed 2nd story 19' closer than the average • Height - proposed height is 6' taller than the average (includes 18 worst case) May 2, 2022 Item 09
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 21
Details - Section D – Colorful Map of Neighborhood Homes Green indicates single-story. Red indicates two-story.

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 * May 2, 2022 Item 09
May 2, 2022 Item 09
May 2, 2022 Item 09
May 2, 2022 Item 09
May 2, 2022 Item 09
May 2, 2022 Item 09
May 2, 2022 Item 09
May 2, 2022 Item 09
May 2, 2022 Item 09
May 2, 2022 Item 09
May 2, 2022 Item 09
May 2, 2022 Item 09
May 2, 2022 Item 09
May 2, 2022 Item 09
May 2, 2022 Item 09
May 2, 2022 Item 09
May 2, 2022 Item 09
May 2, 2022 Item 09
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
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 May 2, 2022 Item 09
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS

11/2020
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
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
May 2, 2022 Item 09
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS

11/2020
3 • 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.

EXPERT TESTIMONY
Mr. Hackett has qualified as an expert witness in real estate matters and has testified before:
• ADR Services, Inc.

May 2, 2022 Item 09
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS

11/2020
4 • 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 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 May 2, 2022 Item 09
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS

11/2020
5 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.

May 2, 2022 Item 09
11/20
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS
CLIENTS (Partial List)
Public/Quasi-Public
City of Alhambra Redevelopment Agency
City of Arcadia Redevelopment Agency
City of Baldwin Park Redevelopment Agency
Baldwin Park Unified School District
City of Burbank
City of Burbank Redevelopment Agency
City of Burbank Department of Water & Power
City of Cerritos
Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Los Angeles
City of El Monte Redevelopment Agency
Federal Aviation Administration
City of Fontana Redevelopment Agency
Glendale Unified School District
City of Inglewood Redevelopment Agency
Internal Revenue Service, Western Region
City of Lakewood
Los Angeles County Flood Control District
Los Angeles County Sanitation District
City of Norwalk
City of Paramount
City of Pasadena Development Department
Regents of the University of California
Resolution Trust Corporation
City of Santa Monica Department of Community & Economic Development Santa Monica Municipal Airport
City of Santa Monica Office of the City Attorney
City of Santa Monica Rent Control Board
City of Simi Valley
Temple City Redevelopment Agency
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. General Services Administration, Region 9
U.S. Postal Service
City of West Covina
West Covina Community Development Commission
Utility Companies
Southern California Edison
Suburban Water System
West Basin Municipal Water District
Financial Institutions
American Savings and Loan Association
Bank of America
May 2, 2022 Item 09
CLIENTS (Partial List)
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS

11/20
Capital Bank of California
Capital Guardian Trust Co. of Nevada
Cedars Bank
City National Bank
Continental Bank
Household Bank, fsb
Imperial Bank
Imperial Federal Savings and Loan Association
Industrial Bank
Land of Lincoln Savings and Loan Association
Metrobank
Sanwa Bank
Sunrise Mortgage & Investment Co.

Union Bank
Wells Fargo Bank
Insurance Companies
Allstate Insurance Co.

Chartis Insurance
Chubb & Son, a division of Federal Insurance Company
Liberty Mutual
Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co., Chattanooga, Tennessee St. Paul Insurance Co., St. Paul, Minnesota
Standard Insurance Co., Portland, Oregon
Star Insurance, Southfield, Michigan
State Farm Insurance Co.

VASA North Atlantic Insurance Co.

Corporate
AAA – Automobile Club
Aeroquip
Anaheim Memorial Hospital
Anchor Management
Anderson Farms
Andrews Rancho Del Norte
Andrews Rancho Del Sur
The William Baird Co., Inc.

Burbank Medical Clinic
Cadway, Inc.

Capital Pacific Homes
E.M. Caplow & Associates
Centex Homes
Champion Development Co.

Cloverleaf Group
Coldwell Banker
May 2, 2022 Item 09
CLIENTS (Partial List)
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS

11/20
Dinan Real Estate Advisors, Inc.

Henry George Greene, A.I.A.

GVD Commercial Property
Hakimianpour Santa Monica Group, LLC
Halferty Development Co.

Houlihan Dorton & Associates
Intertek
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan
Kaufman and Broad
Koss Financial Corporation
Lerner Packing Corporation
Wallace Moir
Jerry Moss Commercial Real Estate Development
National Broadcasting Company, Inc.

National Management Real Estate Corporation, St. Louis, MO New York Institute of Technology
Oldtimers Housing Development Corporation
Olen Properties, Inc.

Otting Enterprises, Inc.

Park/Abrams Development Co.

PCI Industries
P.F.K. Development Group
Realty Development Corporation
Renkow Service Co.

Schickler Meringoff Properties, Inc.

Sher Development
Silton Properties
Stevens Family Trust
TCR – Trammell Crow Residential
James M. Udall, Inc. Realtors
United Way
Unitrans International Corporation
Unocal Corporation
Title Companies
Chicago Title Insurance Co.

Commonwealth Land Title Co.

Fidelity National Title Co.

Fidelity National Law Group
First American Title Insurance Co.

Lawyer's Land Title Co.

National Title Insurance Co. of New York
North American Title Insurance Co.

Old Republic Title Co.

Security Union Title Insurance Co.

May 2, 2022 Item 09
CLIENTS (Partial List)
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS

11/20
Stewart Title Guaranty Co.

Ticor Title Insurance Co. of California
Title Resources Guaranty Co.

Transnation Title Insurance Co.

Attorneys
Alborg, Veiluva & Martin, Walnut Creek
Alperstein, Simon, Farkas, Gillin & Scott, LLP, Encino
Anderson, McPharlin & Connors, LLP, Los Angeles
Aran & Aran, Los Angeles
Archer Norris, Newport Beach
Astor & Phillips, Los Angeles
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Rudd & Romo, Cerritos
Baker, Silberberg & Keener, Santa Monica
Beckman, Davis, Smith & Ruddy, Los Angeles
Best, Best & Krieger, Palm Springs
Billet & Kaplan, Los Angeles
David G. Boss, Esq.; The Boss Law Firm, San Diego
Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Los Angeles
Browne & Woods, Beverly Hills
Carl G. Buchberg, Los Angeles
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Los Angeles
George S. Burns, Esq., Irvine
Bryon & Edwards, APC, San Diego
Sheldon R. Caplow, Esq., Encino
Paul W. Chandler, Los Angeles
Deborah Chodos, Brentwood
Michael A. Chodos, Palos Verdes Estates
Chapin, Shea, McNitt & Carter, Los Angeles
Chuck & Tsoong, Glendale
Cunningham, Treadwell & Bartlestone, Woodland Hills
Dapeer, Rosenblit & Litvak, Los Angeles
Demler, Armstrong & Rowland, LLP, Long Beach
DiMascio & Berardo, Los Angeles
Driscoll & Driscoll, Pasadena
Erickson Arbuthnot, Los Angeles
Ernster Law Office, Pasadena
Ferguson, Regnier & Paterson, Oxnard
Fox & Sohagi, Los Angeles
Fredman/Lieberman, LLP, Los Angeles
Gaglione & Dolan, Los Angeles
Galfin, Passon & Greely, LLP, Irvine
Garrett & Tully, Pasadena and Thousand Oaks
Gendel, Raskoff, Shapiro & Quitner, Los Angeles
Gibbs, Giden, Locher, Turner, Senet & Wittbrodt LLP, Los Angeles May 2, 2022 Item 09
CLIENTS (Partial List)
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS

11/20
Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley & Jennett LLP, Los Angeles
Gillin, Scott, Alperstein, Glantz & Simon, Encino
Gordon & Rees, San Diego
Graham, Vaage & Cisneros, Glendale
Greenberg, Glusker, Fields, Claman & Machtinger, Los Angeles Hagenbaugh & Murphy, Santa Ana and Glendale
Hahn & Hahn, Pasadena
Hamrick, Garrotto, Briskin & Pene, Thousand Oaks
Hanger, Steinberg, Shapiro & Ash, Woodland Hills
Harder LLP, Beverly Hills
Hastie and Kirschner, Oklahoma City
Hennelly & Grossfeld, Marina Del Rey
Hershorin & Henry, LLP, Foothill Ranch
Higgs, Fletcher & Mack, San Diego
Hilbert & Satterly, San Diego
Lore Hilburg, Esq., Los Angeles
Horn & Waxman, Encino
Horgan, Rosen, Beckham & Coren, Calabasas
Horton & DeBolt, Chatsworth
Irell & Manella, Los Angeles
Irsfeld, Irsfeld & Younger, LLP, Glendale
Barak Issacs, Esq., Encino
Ives, Kirwan & Dibble, Los Angeles
Iwasaki, Thomas & Sheffield, Los Angeles
Johns, Marrs, Ellis & Hodge LLP, Houston, Texas
Katz, Hoyt, Bell & Seigel, Los Angeles
Kellner, Chehebar & Deveney, New York
Klinedinst PC, Los Angeles
Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Glendale
Kudo & Daniels, Los Angeles
LaFollette, Johnson, DeHass, Fesler & Ames, Los Angeles LeClair Ryan, Los Angeles
Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard, Los Angeles
Levinson, Kaplan, Arshonsky & Kurtz, Encino
Lipofsky & Lande, Beverly Hills
Loeb and Loeb, Los Angeles
Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, Los Angeles and San Diego Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, Irvine
Marcus, Watanabe, Snyder & Dave, Los Angeles
Martin & Stamp, Long Beach
McCann & Carroll, Carlsbad
McIntosh Law Corporation, Long Beach
Joel F. McIntyre, Esq., Glendora
Robert J. McKay, Esq., Pasadena
McKenna & Cuneo, Los Angeles
Ken Meyer, Culver City
Meyers & McConnell, Brentwood
May 2, 2022 Item 09
CLIENTS (Partial List)
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS

11/20
Milam & Larsen, Pasadena
Miller, Starr & Regalia, Walnut Creek
Morris, Polich & Purdy, Orange and Los Angeles
Daniel T. Mosier, Redding
Mower, Koeller, Nebeker & Carlson, Irvine
Munger, Tolles & Olsen, Los Angeles
Murchison & Cummings, Los Angeles
Patrick Naylon, Esq., Sherman Oaks
Oliver, Vose, Sandifer, Murphy & Lee, Los Angeles
O'Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles
James L. Pagano, Esq., San Jose
Paladin Law Group, LLP, Santa Barbara
Paul Hastings, LLP, Los Angeles
Phillips, Spallas & Angstadt, Los Angeles
Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman LLP, Los Angeles
Polk & Berke, Brentwood
Proctor & Proctor, Burbank
Public Counsel
Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges, LLP, Los Angeles Richards, Watson, Dreyfuss & Gershon, Los Angeles
Richardson, Fair & Cohen, Riverside
Robinson, Wolas & Diament, Los Angeles
Rosman & Germain, Los Angeles
Rutan & Tucker, Costa Mesa
Samuels, Green, Steel & Adams, LLP, Irvine
Schaffer, Lax, McNaughton & Chen, Los Angeles
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Los Angeles
Shulman Bunn LLP, Newport Beach
Specter & Willoughby, LLP, Newport Beach
James D. Sumner, Jr., Esq., Los Angeles
Tompkins & Parrington, Alhambra
Tuttle & Taylor, Los Angeles
Tyre, Kamins, Katz & Granof, Los Angeles
Vok, Newman, Gralla & Karp, Los Angeles
Walleck, Shane & Stanard, Woodland Hills
Weil & Drage, Laguna Hills
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Los Angeles
Wolfe & Wyman, Irvine
Workman, Sullivan & Dee, Los Angeles
Wyman, Bautzer, Christensen, Kuchel & Silbert, Los Angeles Steven L. Zelig, Esq., Brentwood
May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Robin Crabtree <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 4:26 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Ashley Jones; David Druker-Private; Dwight Worden-Private; Terry TG. Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez RN; Dan Quirk
Subject: Red Dot Item #9 city council agenda
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear council members,
Please accept the recommendations/ approval of the DRB for the Ziskin home! Enough is enough! Please let this family build their home….they have jumped through all the correct hoops and then many more to build their home.

Thank you
Robin and Dan Crabtree
140 25 th st…DM
Sent from my iPad
1 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Chelsea Ziskin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2022 3:09 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red dot 624 8th st. 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.

Can you please add this email as a red dot for our hearing? Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Kelly Welch <[email protected]>
Date: April 19, 2022 at 12:30:21 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Ziskin Remodel
Hi….We are writing in favor of the Ziskin remodel. It is totally unacceptable and ridiculous that an appeal should be granted when their remodel was voted on and approved in front of the Del Mar Review Board. There is no basis for this appeal. The party that is appealing has one goal in mind……to wear the Ziskin’s down so that they will eventually give up and move away. I watched them do this same thing with the property behind them. Why and how are you allowing this to happen? All the Ziskins are trying to do is build a small home that will help fit their family and improve our street. Why does the family next door to the Ziskins have so much influence?
Sincerely,
Kelly and Pat Welch
431 8th Street
1 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Pamela Richards <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 9:08 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: RED DOT ITEM: red dot - 624 8th St. 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.

To the Del Mar City Council:

I support the proposed project at the Ziskin home, 624 8th St. The design fits well with the character of the neighborhood, and will be a significant improvement from the current small bungalow. This is the type of project that the city should encourage: residential redesigns on small lots that allow families like the Ziskins to stay in Del Mar.

Families strengthen our neighborhoods and our community.

The approval process has been long and the project has been thoroughly vetted by both the DRB and the Planning Commission. Both have voted that the project should go forward.

I urge the council to uphold the DRB's decision.
--
Pamela Richards
636 Hoska Dr.

Del Mar, CA 92014
cell: 619-787-2582
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 1 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Susie Macnamara <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2022 4:14 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: 624 8th Street (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.

I am writing to you today to provide my support for the build of the new Ziskin home. To my knowledge, they have complied with all the DRB requests, and got a green light to build their home. The project has overwhelming support in the neighborhood.

I would hope that you would support the DRB’s decision.

Susie MacNamara
Sent from my iPad
2 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Terri Pavelko <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2022 4:35 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: David Druker; Dwight Worden-Private; Tracy Martinez; Terry Gaasterland; [email protected]
Subject: Red Dot Letter regarding Hook-Wilson/Ziskin Appeal 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.

I am writing to City Council, yet again, asking you to uphold the DRB approval of the Ziskin project at 624 8th Street, Del Mar.

That two members of our City Council voted to hear the Hook-Wilson appeal, knowing the facts and history of this issue, that it didn’t meet the list of appeal requirements and that city staff recommended to uphold this DRB approval, is sincerely quite shocking to me!!
I won’t address the points of contention in this appeal. You have all the records, from the unanimous Planning Commission approval, from your upholding that approval in the Hook-Wilson appeal and the records you have been presented supporting the DRB’s 5-2 vote for approval. I’m trusting that your analysis of the facts in this appeal will clearly lead you to a decision of upholding the Ziskin’s DRB approval.

Of equal importance to me that this DRB approval stands, is that you shut down this despicable, harassing, bullying, litigious behavior of one neighbor against another, which has been all too common in this community! The Zizkins are not the first neighbors to receive this harassment from Nigel Hook and Janet Wilson. It is sport for Hook-Wilson to try and shut down renovation projects on Hoska and neighboring streets, it’s gone on for years. I have personal knowledge of this from two previous homeowners that abandoned their projects on Hoska under the Hook-Wilson gamesmanship, and I also have personal knowledge of Nigel Hook’s solicitation of Dave Drucker and his perceived political power to help Nigel gain board/council advantages. This behavior is wrong and it must be strongly discouraged from our powers that be.

I am passionate that our DRB process be a fair and respectful process for all Del Mar citizens. The Ziskins have designed their home within all the onerous regulations and guidelines Del Mar has in place, playing by the book in all regards. They have in good faith spent two and a half years trying to workout a peaceful resolution with Hook-Wilson to no avail.
3 May 2, 2022 Item 09
2 I ask City Council to stop this insanity!! Uphold the Ziskin DRB approval, respecting the decision of the hard working DRB board members you placed and let the Ziskins build their 1600 sq. ft. family home!!
Respectively,
Terri Pavelko
Terri Pavelko
1661 Luneta Drive
Del Mar, CA 92014
Home: 858-794-1659
Cell: 858-395-7806
4 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Matt Ziskin <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 8:06 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Dwight Worden; Tracy Martinez; Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk Cc: Brian Church; Matt And Chelsea Ziskin
Subject: Ziskin Family Letter to City Council Re: De Novo Hearing DRB21-018 Attachments: Ziskin Letter to City Council.pdf
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,
Please find our attached letter regarding the De Novo Hearing for DRB21-018. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or need any additional information prior to the hearing.

Best regards,
Chelsea and Matt Ziskin
5 May 2, 2022 Item 09
LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL RE: DE NOVO HEARING DRB21-018
We are Chelsea and Matt Ziskin and along with our four young sons, we have resided in our Del Mar home since 2015. Over the last two years we have been pursuing approval to rebuild our aging home to provide a new house on our property in Del Mar where we can continue to raise our boys. The first step was selecting a respected and experienced local architect who understood how things worked in Del Mar. Over the last two years, we have done everything by the book – CPP1, CPP2, reaching out and providing transparency with neighbors, following the DRO, meeting with members of the DRB, compromising and making adjustments to our plans to address all reasonable concerns.

Our project was reviewed twice by the DRB. At the first review in December of 2021, members of the DRB raised concern about some aspects of the project not being in compliance with the Design Review Ordinance (DRO). They offered us the opportunity to continue the item so we could consider the concerns they raised and make revisions to the project.

We returned for a second review by the DRB in February of 2022. We returned with a project design that was significantly modified so as to address each and every concern raised by DRB members at their December 2021 meeting. The DRB heard all of the pertinent information, deliberated and ultimately determined that, as revised and conditioned, our project did not violate any of the DRO’s regulatory conclusions. It was on this basis that they voted to approve the project. This is reflected in the DRB’s adopted Resolution of Approval, which states:

Based upon the evidence presented at the public hearings on December 15, 2021 and February 23, 2022 including written and oral staff reports, public written testimony, Applicant's and Applicant's representative's written and oral testimony, and in accordance with DMMC Section 23.08.070, the Design Review Board of the City of Del Mar finds that the Project, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the Community based on the Regulatory Conclusions Sections of DMMC Chapter 23.08 (Design Review).

The DRB members are appointed by the Council and trained by staff to review a project’s compliance with the standards of review contained in the City’s Design Review Ordinance and Design Guidelines. Again, the DRB did so, twice and voted to approve the project as being compliant with each.

At the time of the Initial Consideration of the Appeal, City staff, recommended that the City Council uphold the DRB’s conditional approval of the application. The report for the Initial Consideration states:

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

The staff report further stated that with respect to the points in the appellants’ letter of appeal:

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.
6 May 2, 2022 Item 09
We recognize that, as a De Novo hearing, the Council’s review is a new one. But we ask that the Council review the considerable deliberations and action of the DRB, and likewise, see that our project has been honed to comply with the Design Review Ordinance.

The appeal of the DRB action was submitted only by the Hook/Wilsons. No other neighbors joined the appeal.

As to the content of the appeal, the major argument presented by the appellants is that our proposed home would be out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood, largely because it is two-stories. But there are clearly many other two-story homes in the vicinity and the appellants’ own home has a considerable two-story element. Also, because our lot is smaller than many others in the area, we don’t have the luxury of expanding the home’s first story, hence the inclusion of a small second story. No one else has raised the concern about the home being out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood.

Another issued raised by the appellants and their representative is the potential for view blockage from the Hook/Wilson home. On this point: 1) in a recent Trees Scenic View Sunlight (TSVS) hearing, the Planning Commission determined that the vegetation on our property did not block any Primary Scenic views of the Hook/Wilson property and this action was upheld by the City Council on appeal.

We recognize that the TSVS application is a separate matter, but the conclusion pointed out the lack of view blockage across our site from the appellants’ home. And the DRB in its review of our project confirmed that it would not violate any DRO view regulations. What is especially galling is that the views the appellants claim to have, only exist because they cut down vegetation on our property without any permission so they could open up new views they could later claim warranted protection.

This is unfair and we fear would set a dangerous precedent if other homeowners follow suit, trespassing onto neighbors’ properties cutting down vegetation to suit their current and future desires.

We request that as part of their deliberations, the City Council send a clear message what the Hook/Wilsons did was inappropriate and will not be condoned.

The appellants submitted a lengthy red dot letter on 4/28/22 with a number of inconsistencies. As our project is broadly supported by the neighborhood and they are the only ones driving this appeal and the only ones to raise their concerns, we thought it appropriate to address their points one by one below.

In conclusion, we worked very hard with our architect to put together a design that has been welcomed by the majority of the neighborhood. It is a modest sized home for our family of six. We did not include a basement or partial basement areas to get more exempt square footage, largely because we felt that would make the home seem larger than necessary. Our project complies with all of the City’s zoning regulations and, as determined by your Design Review Board, also complies with the Design Review Ordinance and Design Guidelines.

Again, we request that you make the same determination as your appointed DRB members and approve the project with same conditions as by the DRB.

Sincerely,
Chelsea and Matt Ziskin and Family
7 May 2, 2022 Item 09
Response to Appellants’ Red Dot Letter Dated 4/28/22
• The initial paragraphs of their letter focus on compliance with and respect for the laws. This is notable as the appellants have repeatedly displayed a willingness to circumvent laws that prohibit trespassing and vandalism by aggressively cutting vegetation belonging to us and to their other neighbor to the west at 623 Hoska, Susie MacNamara. While it seems important to them that others respect the laws, their actions show that they don’t hold themselves to the same standard.
• While the first two paragraphs focus on the importance of following the DRO as law. The next set of paragraphs and bullet points seem to suggest that City Council has the power to disregard the DRO which earlier was described to be the law in Del Mar. o The first set of bullet points focus on our property’s substandard size and large city right-of-way in front of our property. These aspects of our property are exactly why a two-story home is necessary to allow for adequate living and yard space for our family.

Another unique circumstance is that our property sits below the street level.

Consequently, the addition of a second story results in the appearance of a single story from the street level since the majority of the first floor sits below the street level. o The second set of bullet points indicate that our lot is a flat, buildable lot currently supporting a single-story house. While it is true that our current house is a single story, its positioning on the lot does not meet current code required setbacks. To comply with current code, it is necessary to move the home further toward the front of our lot which is not flat.
• The next paragraph and sets of bullet points include the appellants’ objections to our project. It should be noted that the vast majority of our neighborhood does not share their objections or agree with their points.
o Item 6 in their list addresses the impact on our neighborhood. It should be noted that during the seven years we have lived in our home, there have been four different neighbors living in the three adjacent properties to the appellants. During that time, the appellants have had conflicts and threatened or pursued legal action against all four neighbors. I do not know of any other neighbors in our immediate area who have that kind of track record when it comes to adversely impacting the neighborhood. • Pages 3 to 5 focus on the appellants’ concern about the view from a portion of their yard that represents 15% of the western frontage of their property. Per DMMC 23.08.40, view impacts are assessed from a property’s primary living area which does not include outdoor spaces. A few specific, misleading points raised in these pages include:
o “From my kitchen table…there is sunlight and blue skies with vegetation blowing in the breeze. However, now when I look up, I see story poles. Those poles are telling a gloomy tale that 100% of the sunlight and blue sky would be forever obliterated.”  In 2015, when we purchased our home, the Eugenia trees on the west side of our property were 25 feet tall. At that time, they were over 30 years old. They existed long before the appellants purchased their home in 1999. The appellants cut our trees down to 11-foot-tall stumps without permission in 2015. The appellants filed a tree and scenic view complaint that was rejected by a unanimous vote by the Planning Commission and then their appeal of that decision was rejected by City Council. Currently, those trees stand at approximately 16 feet tall. When they are restored to their original 25 feet, the trees will obscure the appellants view of our proposed home from their primary living space.
8 May 2, 2022 Item 09
 As shown in the satellite photo in Exhibit B below. Our proposed home occupies approximately 15% of the western frontage and will sit approximately 50 feet to the south of their home. There is absolutely no truth to the exaggerated claim that our home will obliterate “100% of the sunlight and blue sky”. o “Every time I walk from the driveway to our home, I admire our view.”  In the images shown in Exhibit A below, you will see that the small ocean view the appellants currently have from their yard will be greatly expanded to the south of their property when our project is complete. Further, the vegetation that is shown below the ocean view is on the appellants’ property and at their discretion, they could lower it and create an even larger ocean view. We visited the appellants prior to the last DRB meeting to try to come to a compromise and when we brought that point up to them, we were told “that is too far to walk from our house”.
• Pages 7 to 9 focus on the grading required to address current drainage issues due to our property being located below the street level.
o The first sentence on page 7 indicates that “grading is not story poled” which is incorrect. The story poles depict the height of the home after grading has been completed, so grading is indeed “story-poled”.
o The rest of pages 7 to 9 contain several incorrect assertions about grading and heights.

The reality is there are current drainage issues on the property causing water to drain directly into the yard of our neighbors to the west. The appellants claim they have no knowledge of drainage issues which makes sense because they are uphill from our property and are not impacted by the drainage issues like our neighbors to the west.

The proposed grading for the project is done solely for the purpose of improving drainage. This was discussed by during the DRB process and every member of the DRB was satisfied with the grading and fill proposed for this project. o The architect’s drawings clearly lay out the heights and fill and a review of the plans convey a very different picture than that expressed by the appellants. It is notable that the overall height of the proposed home is 24’-2” above the existing grade. That is substantially below the 26’ that is allowed in Del Mar. That is the height above the existing grade and includes any fill proposed to address the drainage. • Page 10 addresses the landscaping and addresses concerns about California’s drought. o The first paragraph references California’s drought. All of the vegetation proposed in our plan is drought tolerant vegetation and will be irrigated with the most efficient and water-wise methods of irrigation. Given the appellants’ concern for the drought in California, it is surprising they maintain approximately 3,000 square feet of lawn on the south side of the property and an additional 800 square feet of lawn on the north side of their property. Such an enormous amount of grass requires a substantial amount of water to maintain compared to the many drought-tolerant landscape options like those we will be using in our project.
o The first paragraph continues to erroneously claims hedges would need to be added to “minimize the appearance of the unreasonable height, bulk and mass of the structure”.

This statement ignores the fact that mature trees currently exist on two sides of the property and will remain.
• Pages 11 to 13 discuss the compatibility with the neighborhood. This was discussed at length by the DRB and has also been referenced by the many neighbors who are supportive of our project. The appellants seem to be the only ones who have these concerns about compatibility with the neighborhood and no one has joined them to share these concerns. Some of the attributes of our property that are unique to the homes referenced by the appellants include 9 May 2, 2022 Item 09
the fact that our property resides below street level and the larger than typical right-of-way between the street and the start of our property line.
o The result of the property residing below street level is the proposed two-story home appears to be much closer to a one-story home as much of the first story is below the street level.
o The impact of the large right-of-way is the home can be located at the required setback from our property line and feel as though it is set back much further from the street.

These attributes mitigate the concerns raised by the appellants and it was clear from the DRB members discussions that they did not believe our project was in conflict with the DRO as it pertained to compatibility with the neighborhood.
• Pages 14 to 17 focus on design concerns by the appellants. Many of their comments on these pages seem to be in conflict with their comments on page 2: “we like the style of the design, the architecture is beautiful”. The design concerns and references to the Del Mar Design Guidelines appear to highlight a lack of understanding of these items by the appellants. Those with more experience in these areas including the DRB members and our architect, Brian Church, who is accredited and has built dozens of homes in Del Mar do not agree with the statements made by the appellants.
• Page 18 seems to focus on the impact our home will have on our neighbors to the west. While it is admirable to see the appellants’ concern for others, they are missing the fact that we have a fantastic relationship with our neighbors to the west and have spent a significant amount of time collaborating with them to come to a mutually beneficial plan to improve the fence separating our properties and ensure there is no violation of their privacy. During one visit by a DRB member to our home, we visited our neighbors to the west and the DRB member was assured our neighbors are supportive of our project. The photoshopped image included on page 18 that the appellants created is incorrect and misleading. Exhibits C and D show more accurately how the privacy of our neighbors to the west will be maintained. • Pages 19-21 focus on the definition of “neighborhood” and what houses should be included to compare to our proposed home. On page 21, they admit that the term “neighborhood” is subjective and the city ordinances support that as there is no definition of neighborhood that is officially recognized by the City of Del Mar. The members of the DRB included this point in their discussions and took that into consideration in their decision making and assertion that our project was indeed consistent with other houses in the neighborhood. • Pages 22 to 49 include an arbitrary report by someone hired by the appellants to produce a report indicating there could be a reduction in the value of their home as a result of improving the home on our property. The report conveniently ignores several important factors, including 1) the more substantial ocean view opened up to the south of the appellants’ property as depicted in Exhibit A, 2) the fact that the Eugenia trees between our properties that currently stand at 16 feet tall will be regrown to the height they were before they were illegally cut by the appellants, and 3) in almost every case when an older home is improved, it has the impact of increasing the value of the surrounding homes.

10 May 2, 2022 Item 09
Exhibit A: Depictions of the Current View and New Views Opened Up By Our Project 11 May 2, 2022 Item 09
Exhibit B: The Proposed Home Will Occupy ~15% of the Appellants’ Western Property and Is Situated ~50 Feet South of Their Home

12 May 2, 2022 Item 09
Exhibit C: This Section Shows How Privacy Will Be Maintained for Our Neighbors to the West

Exhibit D: This Depiction Shows How Our Neighbors to the West will be Unable to See Our Home from Their Yard
13 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: CAROL MORE <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 11:09 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: to uphold the Ziskins DRB approval.

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.

Pleae uphold the Zinkins DRB approval. The challenges do not haver merit and this project should be approved.

Carol More
230 22nd Street, Del Mar
14 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Cathie Hays <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 1:27 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot: 624 8th Street 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.

Del Mar City Council Members:

I hope, as you consider the appeal of the DRB decision regarding the Ziskin's project, you give attention to the approval that has already been given by the very talented and vetted people that sit on the DRB and Planning Commission. The Ziskin's followed all the guidelines and their project passed the Planning Commission and the DRB. As everyone in Del Mar knows, this is not a journey for the faint of heart. After approval by both these bodies, I am surprised that the City Council granted an appeal. But, I hope that on closer review on Monday you are able to see that the project meets all guidelines and that this young family should be given a green light to build this home that has been approved by the bodies (DRB and Planning Commission) that the city has created to make these decisions.

Thank you for your time and service,
Cathie Hays
2986 Sandy Lane
Del Mar, CA 92014
15 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Camilla Rang <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 8:02 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 9 on City Council meeting agenda April 2, 2022.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
I have read and looked through letters, photos and info about the very difficult case of the planned construction of a 2-story house on 624 8th Street. I am aware of the strained relationship, and the reason why, between Janet Wilson and the owner of 624 8th Street.

However, that does not change the fact that the planned two story house on 624 8th street is removing all ocean view for Janet Wilson´s property.

At the same time as we want to encourage new families to move in and replace old dwellings that have served their function and is outdated, Del Mar should also try to uphold its own ordinance in regards to view protection. Otherwise, why even have the ordinance? The TSVS is a big reason why people pay large sums of money to live within City of Del Mar.

One compromise could perhaps be to build the 624 8th street house so it´s only partially 2 stories so that the Wilsons still could keep most of their view and with privacy glass in potential windows facing the Wilson´s yard? A good example of that (partly 2 story) is 910 Stratford Ct., if you have time to drive by and take a look. This was done to keep the view and light of the home east of 910 Stratford. A beautiful example of privacy glass can be seen at 922 Stratford facing the alley. That agreement was met to keep the privacy of the house across the alley Melanie Way. Del Mar is unique in protecting your home´s value and view, something we all cherish and benefit from. Let´s uphold this unique feature of Del Mar, while also finding wiggling room to upgrade the standards of living from the old beach cottages that now have served their function.

Sincerely,
Camilla Rang
159 10th Street, Del Mar, CA 92014
16 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Jamie Jensen <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 11:07 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: City Council hearing for 624 8th Street 5/2/2022 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 are writing in support of the Ziskin family home, we are neighbors at 434 8th Street.

We support the DRB decision of approval given for them to build a beautiful home that is perfectly suited to 8th street and our town.

We have followed this situation with Janet & Nigel over the past year and find it very disturbing the intense harassment these people have inflicted not only on the Ziskins but other families that tried to build a home in the past.

The planning commission heard their claims and unanimously denied them. They have been unable to demonstrate a scenic view prior to them illegally cutting down the Ziskins trees They now are claiming a view from their backyard which is NOT PROTECTED.

The DRB was a 5-2 vote in favor of the Ziskins, and as we all know in this town that is no easy feat to obtain.

Any realtor would tell you a beautiful new home adds tremendous property value to all the surrounding homes. Our street is in serious need of upgraded homes, and this home is not only modest in size, but it is also beautiful in design and landscaping.

We are extremely concerned that Nigel employs a city council member and may try to circumvent the rules that apply to everyone else in this town.

I urge the City Council to not set a dangerous precedent and to uphold the DRB decision.

Thank you
Henrik & Jamie Jensen
17 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Sherri Williams <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 12:49 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: red dot - 624 8th St. APM: 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 Members of the City Council:

We are writing in support of the Ziskin family at 624 8th Street. We are neighbors on Hoska Dr (the neighboring road to 8th Street). We believe that the DRB's vote of approval was fair and appropriate considering the following key facts:

1. The Ziskin proposed plan does NOT block any primary views. If everyone's backyard, garage, and guest house views were protected in addition to primary views, then every new project would be rejected. Protecting a backyard view for this one proposal does not set a good precedent.

2. The proposed house is consistent with the size and scope of other houses in the neighborhood. It is obviously larger than the small 1950's house being replaced, but there are many other two-story houses in the neighborhood.

3. The proposed plans meet all of the ordinances and guidelines.

Please allow the Ziskin family to proceed with their project.

Sincerely,
Troy & Sherri Williams
18 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 3:05 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot / Ziskin / 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.

Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
My question to you is WHY?
WHY Do we have a City staff that reviews projects and is UNBIASED in it's approvals? WHY Do we have a Planning Commission and a Design Review Board that approves a project along with the Staff compliance and then the decisions are appealed? WHY bother?
To be further considered in this particular case is some unwarranted behavior; first the "liberal" trimming of the trees on the Ziskins's property by the appellants without approval. A friendship; can anyone think there could be any bias or influence from a Council Member that has worked with the appellants as an employee for a number of years and had perhaps improper contact with City commissioners?
The lot is small; substandard. The property only occupies 15% of the west (view side) frontage of the appellant's property. The home will be small ( four sons, whew!!). 8th Street is many cases is still in the process of updating. Anyone remember what 10th street looked like 30 years ago. Most importantly IT IS NOTED THAT THERE IS NO PRIMARY VIEW BLOCKAGE from the main living area of the appellant's house.

PLEASE. Look at the basic facts. It is a simple determination. The design went through the process. All the powers that be approved the project. DENY THE APPEAL! Julie Pinney
727 Kalamath Drive
19 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Whitney Stevens <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 5:00 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: red dot - 624 8th st. 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 City Council,
I wanted to write a quick note regarding the Ziskin’s project’s approval under appeal (APN 300-252-14-00). We have been following the progress of the Ziskin project and wholeheartedly support the DRB’s approval of the 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 as approved by the DRB and raising their four boys in Del Mar.

Kind Regards,
Whitney Stevens
20 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Jill Ellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 6:56 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot: 624 8th st. 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.
>
> Del Mar Council Members and City Clerk:
>
> We wish to comment on the proposed Ziskin house at 624 8th Street. The Ziskin family has thrown themselves wholeheartedly into being members of the Del Mar community ever since they moved in. These are the kind of people that we should all embrace in our city. They are among the very few families with young children who have moved into the area during the 32 years that we have lived on 8th Street. >
> We can see the story poles and have looked at the proposal. This looks like a fine addition to the neighborhood and we endorse it. We think that the upgrade from an old bungalow style house will improve the surrounding neighborhood. We can see that it was approved by the Design Review Board. >
> We have had two notices delivered to our house and an email from one household on our block that objects to the Ziskin proposal. One of their points is that this area is primarily a neighborhood of one story homes, and that a 2 story house in this location would detract from the neighborhood character. We disagree. Standing on our property, we can easily see at least 8 houses in addition to our own that are 2 story, which include a structure on the lot of the people who are appealing the DRB decision.
>
> In summary, we support the Ziskin proposal that was approved by the DRB. We request that the City Council confirm and uphold the decision by the DRB.
>
> Thank you for taking the time to read our letter.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jill Ellis
>
> Judd Westover
>
> 442 8th Street
> Del Mar
>
>
21 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: John Cronin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 7:06 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: red dot - 624 8th st. 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 Members of the Council
We have been residents of Del Mar for 18 years and would like to take this opportunity to voice our support of the above project that has already been approved by the design review board.

It is our belief that the DRB vote should be upheld based on the merits of the proposal that has been thoroughly evaluated by the respected members of the DRB who serve our ENTIRE community.

I contrast this with the “neighborly” efforts to derail this previously approved project. The opponents of this project have used considerable resources and wasted the time of our community by distributing falsehoods that are self-serving at best and corrosive to a community at worst. Regardless, the DRB approved the design according to the process agreed upon by our community. We encourage you to uphold this decision.

Thank you for your service to our community and attention to this matter.

Best regards,
John Cronin
The Cronin Family
523 Orchid Lane
Del Mar CA 92014
22 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Jill Ellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 7:16 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Fwd: Red Dot: 624 8th st. APN: 300-252-14-00” May 2, 2022 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.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jill Ellis <[email protected]>
Subject: Red Dot: 624 8th st. APN: 300-252-14-00”
Date: May 1, 2022 at 6:56:05 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Del Mar Council Members and City Clerk:

We wish to comment on the proposed Ziskin house at 624 8th Street. The Ziskin family has thrown themselves wholeheartedly into being members of the Del Mar community ever since they moved in. These are the kind of people that we should all embrace in our city. They are among the very few families with young children who have moved into the area during the 32 years that we have lived on 8th Street.

We can see the story poles and have looked at the proposal. This looks like a fine addition to the neighborhood and we endorse it. We think that the upgrade from an old bungalow style house will improve the surrounding neighborhood. We can see that it was approved by the Design Review Board.

We have had two notices delivered to our house and an email from one household on our block that objects to the Ziskin proposal. One of their points is that this area is primarily a neighborhood of one story homes, and that a 2 story house in this location would detract from the neighborhood character. We disagree. Standing on our property, we can easily see at least 8 houses in addition to our own that are 2 story, which include a structure on the lot of the people who are appealing the DRB decision.

In summary, we support the Ziskin proposal that was approved by the DRB. We request that the City Council confirm and uphold the decision by the DRB.

Thank you for taking the time to read our letter.

Sincerely,
23 May 2, 2022 Item 09
2 Jill Ellis
Judd Westover
442 8th Street
Del Mar
24 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: john imperato <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 7:38 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Dwight Worden; Terry Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk; David Druker Subject: Red Dot - Ziskin appeal
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 Del Mar Council Members,
I support of the Ziskin family in their efforts and believe that they been unfairly treated in the efforts to build a modest 1600 square foot home on 8th Street.

Please approve this small home plan without change, as it has been approved by our Planning Commission with a 5-0 vote and our DRB with a 5-2 vote. This hearing will mark the 6th? time the family has had to go before a governing entity in Del Mar. Please treat the Ziskins fairly so they can begin building their home.

From my vantage point it appears that the appeal is not well-founded.

Thank you for your consideration of my point of view.

Sincerely,
John Imperato
2034 Santa Fe Ave
25 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: 624 8th St. Project - DRB021-018
From: diana marquardt <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 5:27 PM
To: Planning Mail Box <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 624 8th St. Project - DRB021-018
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.

I sent this statement for the earlier discussion and do not believe there have been any substantive changes to alter my opinion. Thank you for your consideration.

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

Respectfully, Diana Marquardt
26 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Bob Inbody <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 9:31 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Dwight Worden; Tracy Martinez; Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk Subject: RED DOT #9
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 Del Mar Council Members,
I am writing you in support of the wonderful Ziskin family that has been unfairly harassed in the pursuit of building a modest 1600 square foot home on 8th Street.

Please approve this small home without change as has been approved by our Planning Commission with a 5-0 vote and then by our DRB with a 5-2 vote. This hearing marks the 6th time they have had to go before a governing entity in Del Mar and it is time to make this unfair treatment stop. Let them begin the building of their home and allow them to move on with raising their four small boys.

Sincerely,
Robert inbody
Luneta Drive
Del Mar, CA
92014
Sent from my iPhone
1 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: john schroeder <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 9:39 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Ziska’s home remodel
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.

I support approval for Ziskin house remodel. John Schroeder 1703 Coast Blvd. thank you Sent from my iPad
2 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Christy Hahn <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 9:57 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Ziskin home. Item #9 Red Dot
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.

I hope you will see fit to allow Ziskin home to be built, as approved previously by DRB.

Christy Hahn
2027 Coast Blvd. DM
Sent from my iPhone
3 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Linda Lasher <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 10:02 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Dwight Worden; Tracy Martinez; Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk Subject: Red dot for item #9
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 Councilmembers,
I am in support of the Design Review Board approval for this project, which was approved by a 5-2 vote.

I would encourage the City Council to be conservative in overruling the Design Review Board's recommendations , especially in cases where the decision of the Board is not close, as evidenced by the decisive vote in this case.

I urge the City Council not to overrule the DRB decision.

Regards,
Linda Lasher
528 Tewa Ct.

Del Mar, Ca 92014
619.708.3719 c
4 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Red Dot for Item #9on May 2, 2022 Agenda Del Mar City Council meeting Melinda Gould
City of Del Mar | Administrative Services
1050 Camino del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
| 858.704-3633 | [email protected]
City Hall is open for public services Monday-Thursday, from 7:30 AM- 5:30 PM and Friday from 7:30 AM- 4:30 PM. Counter hours for Planning and Building services are Monday and Wednesday between 1:00 PM to 5:30 PM or by appointment. All remote services will continue to be provided during regular City hours. Please check our City website at www.delmar.ca.us for more information.

From: Virginia Frankum <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 10:53 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box <[email protected]>
Cc: Virginia Frankum <[email protected]>
Subject: Red Dot for Item #9on May 2, 2022 Agenda Del Mar City Council meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To: Ashley Jones, City Clerk
City of Del Mar
Ref Item 9 on the agenda.

Background: When the Ziskin family purchased the residence located at 624 8th Street in Del Mar in March of 2015, Chiquita Abbott was the listing agent and I the co-listing agent. The purchase was agreed to by both parties. The SOLD sign went up. The next day when we met at the property we discovered that the property had been trespassed by the neighbor and years of foliage from the trees along the east boundary of the property had been removed expanding the neighbor’s view and removing the privacy those trees provided for the backyard of the new owners.

At that time Chiquita called the Police and advised the City of Del Mar of this transgression.

Before and after photos below.

Today the Ziskin family wishes to redesign the living space of their family home. They followed the rules! I understand the Design Review Board approved their submitted plans. An appeal to deny the approved plans was submitted to the City Council by this same neighbor and the City Council agreed to hear the appeal request.

This evening the Ziskins should have the full support of the City Council, their neighbors, and the community to proceed as planned without a singular interference prohibiting them to move forward. 1 May 2, 2022 Item 09
2 Sincerely,
Virginia Frankum
259 Sea Forest Court
2 May 2, 2022 Item 09
3 3 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: DRB21-018
From: Brooke Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 10:53 AM
To: Sarah Krietor <[email protected]>
Cc: Planning Mail Box <[email protected]>
Subject: DRB21-018
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.

May 2, 2022
Dear Del Mar City Council,
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 May 2nd, 2022 hearing.

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

Code 23.08.010 exists for this very purpose--to ensure that there are limitations to the extent to which a neighbor can diminish the property value of those within proximity. Purchasing a home is one of the most significant investments that most individuals make in a lifetime. How could one properly determine the value of a property if its most valuable characteristics--scenic ocean views--- could potentially be disrupted at any given moment? Part of the code currently applies to "primary scenic view," but in a community such as Del Mar with comfortable weather year round--many people derive enjoyment (and significant property value) from their yards--and not simply their homes. This 4 May 2, 2022 Item 09
2 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." Input from the planning Department should also be considered and not disregarded. They are comprised of a professional staff and their insights on projects such as these are valuable to our community--and their recommendations should be upheld. The planning Department has also expressed concerns related to neighborhood scale, neighborhood compatibility, and the impact on adjacent properties.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you. ~Brooke Garcia 5 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Bryce Dixon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 10:57 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot - 624 8th St 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.

Dear City of Del Mar:

I am writing in support of the Ziskins project on 624 8th Street. I am a Del Mar resident and live on 12th Street. I have known Chelsea since we were children going to school together in Del Mar. I know that they are trying to improve their home for the betterment of their family and the greater community. They are committed to Del Mar and approving these plans would help them as their family has grown extensively since they moved into the house. Please vote to approve their plans. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,
--
Bryce Dixon
310.435.6976
@brycehdixon
6 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Karen Powell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:12 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Dwight Worden; Tracy Martinez; Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk Subject: ⬤ #9
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 Mayor and Members of the Council,
I am writing to express my support for the 624 8th Street home project, as approved by the Design Review Board. I am appalled at the illegitimate and illogical harassment this fine young family has endured in the process of trying to build their home. These are the people we should be welcoming into our village, as they will be and are full-time residents who are currently very supportive of and will continue to be involved with the community.

This hearing marks the 6th time they‘ve had to go before a governing entity in Del Mar and it is time to make this unfair treatment stop.

I would encourage the City Council to be very conservative in overruling the Design Review Board’s recommendations, especially in cases where the decision of the DRB is not close, as evidenced by the decisive vote in this case
Please do not waste any more time on an unfair re-hearing of this project.

Respectfully,
Karen Powell
329 10th Street
Del Mar, CA
92014
Sent from my iPhone
7 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Tim Barb Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:20 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Matthew and Chelsea Ziskin Nigel Hook and Janet Wilson 624 8th Street (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.

Dear City Council Members,
We are writing in Support of the Ziskin project and asking you to Support them as well. We also ask that you review the Ziskin Hook Planning Commission Tree and Scenic View Meeting prior to making your decision.

Many factors go into building a home. The two most significant factors are function and budget. The Ziskins have four younger boys, which ultimately dictates a lot of the functional design of the house. There is no way for the Ziskins to design a new home for four children and two adults without the design including two stories. The lot is not big enough to build a single-level home that would allow the number of bedrooms needed and other family areas to manage a household of six. We know this challenge first hand because we are also a household of six with our four children.

The second factor in building a new home is budget. Going down or building a basement is three to four times the cost of building a second-story home. The impact of forcing the Zinkins to build a one-story home creates the inability to afford the new home they have been trying to build for over two years. It seems unfair that the most significant objection for the Zinakins building a two-story home is being raised by one neighbor. This same neighbor came onto the Zinkins property and illegally cut down the trees that blocked their view and now are saying that a two-story home will take away their view that they never had in the first place.

The Ziskins have done everything by the letter of the law in seeking approval for their new home. They have set aside the money for the budget, hired an excellent architect, and stayed within all the design guidelines. It is now time to approve this two-story home so that this family can take care of their four boys and be part of this community.

Tim & Barb Davis
1 May 2, 2022 Item 09
Dean and Monica Meredith
1956 Seaview Ave.

Del Mar, CA 92014
[email protected]
[email protected]
858.245.6892
858.761.189
May 1, 2022
To: Del Mar City Council Members
I am writing in response to the DRB decision to approve the proposed design which seems to me to block the current ocean view from the Wilson’s/Hook’s living space. It’s my experience that there was an ocean view from their living space when I was there several years ago.

I do believe the Council should re-consider whether this is appropriate for the neighborhood, the size of the lot, and whether it is in line with the current DROs.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Dean and Monica Meredith
2 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Sarah Krietor
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:46 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: 624 8thStreet-DRB21-018,LC21-008, CDP21-012
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dail Peirce <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc:

Bcc:

Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 11:31:22 -0700
Subject: 624 8thStreet-DRB21-018,LC21-008, CDP21-012
Del Mar City Council
City of Del Mar
Attn: Sarah Krietor
Dear City Councilmembers,
As a 34+ year resident of Del Mar, I have SO appreciated the concern of the City Council for the property rights of its citizens.

The proposed development at 624 Eighth Street is contrary to all I've been led to believe is allowable. This projected development is destructive to the neighboring property in that it not only reduces, but destroys their ocean view, a huge property value.

The construction project is of unbecoming bulk and design, totally unlike the neighboring properties. Why would this be permitted?
Sincerely,
Dail M. Peirce
3 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: judy woodhead <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:49 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Dwight Worden; Tracy Martinez; Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk Subject: Red Dot for item #9
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 Members of the Council, I want to take this opportunity to voice my support for the Ziskin project on 8th Street that has been approved by the design review board in a 5-2 vote.

I believe that the DRB vote should be upheld based on the merits of the proposal that has been thoroughly reviewed by the current DRB and also by the staff recommendation that an appeal does not have merit.

Please do not waste any more time on this unfair rehearing of this project.

Sincerely, Judy Woodhead, 319 Bellaire St. Del Mar, CA
4 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:54 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; [email protected] [email protected]; Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk
Cc: Jennifer Gavin
Subject: Red Dot exhibits
Attachments: Ziskin Neighborhood context exhibit.pdf; Ziskin - Hook Wilson Yard view comparison.pdf
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 Clerk and City Council members,
I am attaching several exhibits regarding tonight’s DRB appeal de novo hearing. These exhibits are intended to correct some of the inaccuracies found in the appellant’s red dot letter submitted last week.

I have tried to keep these short and to the point and will complete a few others if time allows before the meeting. I would be happy to meet with any of you via phone, or zoom, or onsite to answer any questions you may have.

You can reach me any time directly on my cell at (619) 980-3437.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Brian Church AIA
Brian Church Architecture
5 May 2, 2022 Item 09
Ziskin House
DRB21-018/ LC21-008/ CDP21-012
Comparison of views from yard at east neighbor
(Hook-Wilson, 635 Hoska)

1. These exhibits are being submitted to correct the inaccurate and incomplete exhibits submitted by the appellants in their red dot letter.

2. Please note that this view from the neighbor’s yard is not a primary scenic view – it is not protected in the DRO.

3. Please note that the view to the west and southwest from the neighbor’s yard will be significantly improved once the project is completed and the existing trees in the Ziskin front yard are removed

4. The Ziskin’s landscaping hedge along their east property line can be grown to screen as much of the house as deemed appropriate (see slides 4-5) 6 May 2, 2022 Item 09
Current view from Hook Wilson yard
View illustrating illegally cut hedge regrown (below right side) 7 May 2, 2022 Item 09
View from Hook Wilson yard with new house added
View from Hook Wilson yard with trees in front yard demolished – view improved 8 May 2, 2022 Item 09
View from Hook Wilson Yard if hedge at side of house is allowed to grow to height of old hedge 9 May 2, 2022 Item 09
Ziskin House
DRB21-018/ LC21-008/ CDP21-012
Neighborhood Context
2 two story houses in neigborhood

1. This exhibit is being submitted to correct the inaccurate and incomplete exhibit submitted by Janet Wilson and Nigel Hook regarding the scale of the neighborhood houses (location of two-story houses)

2. The majority (13 of 25) of houses on 8th Street are two story (this was confirmed by DRB)

3. The appellants guest house next door is two stories

4. The appellants “single story” main house next door is two stories in height (24’), with a two story living room and clerestory with interior stairs up to a second floor landing with access to a roof deck

5. During initial discussions regarding the Ziskin’s new house, Janet Wilson stated that a two-story house would be acceptable (see attached email excerpt).
10 May 2, 2022 Item 09
The map above notes the houses in the neighborhood with two stories (green) The neighborhood is not “predominantly one-story” (Design Guidelines C.1.H) The house has been designed to minimize two story appearance per Design Guideline C.1.H 11 May 2, 2022 Item 09
The following is an excerpt from Janet Wilson during initial discussions regarding the Ziskin’s new house. [Begin Copy]
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Date: April 5, 2015 at 4:46:03 PM PDT
To: Nigel Hook <[email protected]>
Cc: Matt Ziskin <[email protected]>, [email protected], Janet Wilson SilverHook <[email protected]>, Chelsea Bullen <[email protected]>
Subject: Hook Ocean View
Hi Chelsea, Hi Matt,
It was nice having you over on Friday evening.

Attached are some pics showing our view. After our discussion on Friday, it seemed your plans for a 2nd story would be right over the current garage's footprint and since that is agreeable to us, we won't need to draw lines on pictures.

Nigel is waiting on the soft copy. Were you planning to send it soon? Janet
12 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Michael Urkov <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 12:34 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Permit DRB21-018, LC21-008, CDP21-012
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.

I currently reside at 641 Hoska Dr and for the last four plus years we have worked with the city and neighbors to improve and make this home a comfortable and pleasant place to live. We have a very livable backyard and a enjoy a partial ocean view that was part of the appeal of this property to begin with. We are very much opposed to the current plans being considered at 624 8th St. It really impacts the property at 635 Hoska Dr as well as ours. This domino effect is not a good precedent...Del Mar has an outstanding Planning Department and we feel their recommendations should be upheld. Respecfully, Michael A Urkov.......641 Hoska Dr 1 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Revised red dot for Item 9: Deny appeal of DRB appeal of Ziskin family project on 8th St
From: Laura DeMarco <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 12:43 PM
To: Dwight Worden <[email protected]>; Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>; Tracy Martinez <[email protected]>; Dan Quirk <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk Mail Box <[email protected]>
Subject: Revised red dot for Item 9: Deny appeal of DRB appeal of Ziskin family project on 8th St CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council Members and Staff,
We join many other families with young children to support the DRB’s overwhelming 5-2 vote of approval for the Ziskin family’s project at 624 8th Street.

Since moving to Del Mar 7 years ago, the Ziskins have planted deep roots with the birth of two more boys so they now have four active sons under the age of 11. We need more families in Del Mar like the Ziskins to revitalize our community by increasing demographic diversity and keeping open both the Del Mar Hills and Del Mar Heights schools.

As you can see by the satellite image below, the Ziskin’s current small house and tiny lot is dwarfed by the main house of their adjacent eastern neighbor on Hoska. This neighbor’s primary view from their main house is not impacted, only those from their croquet court in their very large yard. In fact, the Ziskin’s project will give this neighbor’s 2-story guest house a new ocean view.
2 May 2, 2022 Item 09
2 The Ziskin’s proposed new 2,000 SF house reduces the footprint of their old house and increases the outdoor play space for their active young children by shifting more living space to a second story. Their neighbor’s guest house is also two stories as are many other houses in the neighborhood.

The DRB approved the Ziskin’s project after they found it met Del Mar’s DROs and did not impact their neighbors’ primary views after a long and comprehensive process and hearings.

Please uphold the DRB’s approval of the Ziskin family’s project and deny its appeal. This will demonstrate that Del Mar’s DRB process is not only fair but also open to families with children.

Thanks for your consideration,
Laura and Ralph DeMarco
3 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
Subject: FW: Wilson/Hook and Ziskin project
From: Dean Meredith <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 12:02 PM
To: Dwight Worden <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>; David Druker <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Wilson/Hook and Ziskin project
Dean Council Members,
I am writing in support of the Staff Report for the Ziskin project and how it impacts the Wilson/Hook property.

As the Staff report states, I feel there is too much non-FAR square footage on the two story building as it is located on a substandard lot. This is contributing to a bulk and mass issue.

Also, there are other civil engineering solutions to solve the drainage issue, I don't feel the only solution is to start the building 7 1/2 feet above natural grade. I don't understand how the drainage issue has been tied into raising the grade of the home.

Thank you for your consideration, and again, I believe the Staff report has identified the important issues.

Please call me if you have any questions.

Dean
Dean Meredith, A.I.A

A R C H I T E C T
cell: 858.245.6892
fax: 858-755-9171
www.deanmereditharchitecture.com
[********** EXTERNAL EMAIL MESSAGE **********]
4 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting - May 2nd (this Monday) 4:30 - De Novo Hearing of 624 8th Street - DRB21-018
From: Donoghue, Daniel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:45 AM
To: Planning Mail Box <[email protected]>
Cc: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>; Donoghue, Daniel <[email protected]> Subject: Re: City Council Meeting - May 2nd (this Monday) 4:30 - De Novo Hearing of 624 8th Street - DRB21-018 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 Del Mar City Council members,
We have lived in Del Mar for 40 years, and at our current residence of 667 Hoska Drive, immediately east and a little up the hill from Janet Wilson and Nigel Hooke, for 23 years. I am very opposed to the proposed project at 624 8th St in its current form. The new residents certainly have the right to rebuild a new home on their lot, but why does it need to be done at the expense of the very limited view corridor currently enjoyed by Janet and Nigel? The proposed new structure will completely block the existing views, and the bulk and scale are out of proportion for our neighborhood.

In this current struggle, neither side is completely in the right or in the wrong but, sadly, there has been no middle ground and no sense of compromise. We urge the City Council to be proactive in pursuing an outcome that would satisfy the needs of all parties in this debate.

Thank you, Dan Donoghue
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 11:49 AM
To: Donoghue, Daniel <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council Meeting - May 2nd (this Monday) 4:30 - De Novo Hearing of 624 8th Street - DRB21-018 Hi Dan,
Monday is the de novo (new) hearing for the 624 8th Street project and your input about this project is very important.

Would you please resend your previous email to [email protected] referencing DRB21- 018 before noon on Monday?
Also, if you might speak on our behalf this Monday that would be even better (but not required).

We're #9 on the agenda and the meeting starts at 4:30pm (https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84790910014)
Should you need inspiration, attached are the documents we've submitted to Planning.

Thank you! Janet
5 May 2, 2022 Item 09
2 We are now Ocean Aware. We do not want to become Wall Aware.
6 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: Jayne Haines <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 4:22 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Dispute
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.

We believe that planning has done a good job.
1 May 2, 2022 Item 09
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Red Dot: Rental Assistance Program
From: Juliana Maxey-Allison <[email protected]>
Date: April 28, 2022 at 4:02:31 PM PDT
To: Dwight Worden <[email protected]>, David Druker <[email protected]>, "Terry TG.

Gaasterland" <[email protected]>, Tracy Martinez <[email protected]>, Dan Quirk <[email protected]>, Ashley Jones <[email protected]>, "Kristen M. Crane" <[email protected]> Subject: Red Dot: Rental Assistance Program
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 Mayor Worden and City Council Members Druker, Gaasterland, Martinez and Quirk:

As I understand it the City Council will not phase out Rental Assistance for the last four disabled residents of varying ages who have been and are currently receiving benefits but will simply cut off the subsidy for these dependent people next year. Certainly City Council members can formulate a plan to indeed phase out the program aid and keep these people in place until they leave for one reason or another rather than adding to displacement and homelessness the very issue that all of California is working on easing.

Julie Maxey Allison
10 Street
1 May 2, 2022 Item 13
1 Melinda Gould
From: Deborah Lyons <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2022 12:42 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Dwight Worden; Tracy Martinez; David Druker; Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk Subject: RED DOT: Del Mar Rental Assistance Item 13
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To The Del Mar City Council:

We are a city with no affordable housing except for these remaining four subsidized rentals. It is unconscionable to end this program that these families (all identified as having special needs) have depended on for many years. Please vote to extend this program for the recommended year and commit to using that year to identify funding that will permit these neighbors to rema8h in their homes in our community.

Sincerely,
Deborah Lyons
410 9th St.
858.354.9637
1 May 2, 2022 Item 13
1 Melinda Gould
From: David Ralph <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2022 1:40 PM
To: Deborah Lyons
Cc: City Clerk Mail Box; Dwight Worden; Tracy Martinez; David Druker; Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk
Subject: Re: RED DOT: Del Mar Rental Assistance Item 13 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.

I vote yes.

David Ralph
[email protected]
On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 12:41 PM Deborah Lyons <[email protected]> wrote:

To The Del Mar City Council:

We are a city with no affordable housing except for these remaining four subsidized rentals. It is unconscionable to end this program that these families (all identified as having special needs) have depended on for many years. Please vote to extend this program for the recommended year and commit to using that year to identify funding that will permit these neighbors to rema8h in their homes in our community.

Sincerely,
Deborah Lyons
410 9th St.
858.354.9637
1 May 2, 2022 Item 13
1 Melinda Gould
From: Alice McNally <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2022 4:11 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Del Mar Rental Assistance: Agenda #13
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk and Council members,
"My home is my castle" is not just a saying, it is true for all of us. What could be more important than keeping our neighbors in their homes and the Del Mar Rental Assistance Program funded. Make it a budget priority. Have a fun raiser, Be a hero. You ran for office to do the right thing, so do it now.

I know one of the recipients, David Ralph, personally and I know his home to be a very modest duplex. He describes it as “heaven”. He greats great please from his small garden and is able to use his walker to get to the 9th street bus stop.

He is beside himself with worry and says he would rather die than move.

Supervisors Joel Anderson, Terra Lawson-Remer and Paul Downey are instrumental in San Diego’s new Rent Subsidy Pilot Program. I have reached out to Supervisor Paul Downey to ask if Del Mar residents qualify and how they could apply. He said they were still in the planning stages back in February. Please contact Paul Downey ph: 619-487-0650, email: [email protected] for up to date info.

Who are we as a city, with we can’t help others less fortunate than ourselves? Please do the right thing for our neighbors.

Alice McNally
1332 Stratford Ct
858-342-3244
1 May 2, 2022 Item 13
1 Melinda Gould
From: Tanya Young <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 12:59 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: RED DOT: Del Mar Rental Assistance Program—Item #13 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 City Manager Ashley Jones:

I am writing again to express my deep concern that David Ralph and other members of our Del Mar community are set in June to lose their long-time rent subsidy provided by the Del Mar Rental Assistance Program. In Dave’s case, the loss of this subsidy will require that he leave his home and seek affordable housing elsewhere. As I’m sure you are aware, the housing specialist with the County has been unable to find even a single alternative housing option for any of these four residents/families as the deadline approaches.

Please adopt the Staff Report’s recommendation to extend the subsidy program until at least June 2023. I would like to see the program funded on a permanent basis to mitigate the lack of affordable housing in our town. At the very least, the Council needs to find funding that will allow this program to expire through natural attrition as the existing participants leave by their own choice.

Dave’s situation is most familiar to me. Requiring him to leave the community of friends and services on which he has counted for twenty or more years is simply heartless. He is our neighbor.

All the best,
Tanya Young

TANYA YOUNG STUDIO
[email protected]
858.382.3636
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftanyayoungart.com%2F&amp;data=05%7C01%7 Ccityclerk%40delmar.ca.us%7C4cf906141859412d04b108da2ae3d7d7%7Ce57e47ceaae64f7392493b679aab1eb4%7C0 %7C0%7C637869455332783726%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1h aWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=q3yTdiL6FVBix8%2BuHM4cKhHEVnzEtvk0j6UTNmqJ9As%3D &amp;reserved=0
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Ftanyayoungscienceillustr ation&amp;data=05%7C01%7Ccityclerk%40delmar.ca.us%7C4cf906141859412d04b108da2ae3d7d7%7Ce57e47ceaae64 f7392493b679aab1eb4%7C0%7C0%7C637869455332783726%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAi LCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=7k6%2Fhe3YKERUizlSWuGwqw gq2OsogcakqDLcXA1VCxs%3D&amp;reserved=0
instagram: tanya_young_studio
twitter: @tanyayoungart
2 May 2, 2022 Item 13
1 Melinda Gould
From: Liz Dernetz <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 1:11 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: RED DOT for Monday, May 2, 2022 Agenda Item #13 Rental Assistance Program 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.

Council members,
I am writing to express my strong support for the Del Mar Rental Assistance Program which benefits four of our neighbors -- they are, in fact, very special people with very special needs. I have always taken great pride in the fact that our city has an established, smoothly functioning rental assistance program to meet the housing needs of our special neighbors.

Every time the program appears on the agenda for renewal, I become concerned on behalf of our special needs residents. I'm sure they, too, feel concern that the program has an end date as well as a start date. Given the non-shelter issues these folks already deal with on a daily basis, they do not need to add the worry about losing their modest, affordable shelter.

I believe and strongly recommend that the city approve the extension of the rental assistance program but that the extension should be made permanent so these special residents are relieved of that worry longterm.

Respectfully submitted,
Liz Dernetz
9th Street
Del Mar, CA
Home: 858-755-5904
Cell" 619-252-5904
3 May 2, 2022 Item 13
1 Melinda Gould
From: Mirsky, Phyllis <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 3:45 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot City Council Item #13 on Del Mar Rental Subsidy Program 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.

Councilmembers:

We would like to support the staff recommendation regarding extension of the Del Mar Rental Subsidy Program until June 2023. In the interim, we strongly encourage and would support the Council in finding sufficient funding to continue the program until the current four residents served by this Program no longer need this subsidy.

Sincerely,
Phyllis and Ed Mirsky
605 Hoska Drive
4 May 2, 2022 Item 13
1 Melinda Gould
From: midge <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 10:16 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Dwight Worden; Tracy Martinez; David Druker; Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk Subject: ⬤ item 13 Del Mar Rental Assistance Program
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To: Council members:

We are in the midst of a state wide homelessness crisis, exacerbated by a nation wide housing shortage, in a city with no affordable housing. How in good conscience can you end a rental assistance program that enables just four people to continue to make Del Mar their home? Imagine the anxiety of facing homelessness. Find the funding to continue the Del Mar Rental Assistance Program for these four people. This is a moral issue and it would be shameful for Del Mar to end this assistance.

Sincerely,
Marjorie Zarling
410 9th St.

Del Mar, CA 92014
5 May 2, 2022 Item 13
1 Melinda Gould
From: Wayne Dernetz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 11:55 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: RED DOT - Item 13, May 2, 2022 Agenda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing in support of the City Manager's recommendation on Item 13 of your May 2nd agenda to extend the deadline for the City's Rental Support program to June 30, 2023.

I would observe, however, that this issue is not likely to disappear in the ensuing 14 months. As you are well aware, California and the rest of the nation are in the midst of a massive housing crisis caused by the supply of housing on a national scale not keeping with the population growth over the several decades. The housing shortage in California is among the worst of all the states, and in San Diego County it is among the worst of all the counties in California. This problem will not be solved in the short run.

Moreover, the City's decision to terminate its rental assistance program, after operating it for at least the past twenty years, threatens to throw the four remaining participants out on the street when the decision to terminate the program eventually is made. These residents are among the most vulnerable members of our community. Those who have qualified for the program are among the lowest income or our residents. One, whom I know personally, has been a resident of Del Mar since the early 1970s. He has an advanced degree and had a thriving practice in our community until a massive traumatic brain injury from a car accident in the late 1970s rendered him fully disabled. He barely survived the accident, but did eventually return to a semblance of a normal life, thanks to the City's participation in the rental assistance program. He has been on the rental assistance program for at least the past twenty years.

The issue of terminating the rental assistance program is not solely a financial issue for the City; it is a moral issue. I recognize that the grant funding the City has used to finance the program until the past year or so has lapsed. That isn't the fault of the City or of these recipients. However, the City has resources sufficient to continue financing the program at the current level without sacrificing other important priorities. Thus, the decision not to do so is not an economic decision; it has become a moral decision. I urge you to ask yourselves, "What is the morally right thing to do?" The City could continue to provide the same level of assistance from its own sources, without sacrificing other priorities, until these residents are able to relocate or no longer require assistance, for the indefinite future. Therefore, end the tortuous uncertainty and stress the City is imposing on these residents over their future housing, by 6 May 2, 2022 Item 13
2 agreeing to continue the program for as long as the current recipients are in need. Allow the rental assistance program to wind down on its own, and allow these long term residents of our community to live without the threat of imminent eviction by the City and the near certain consequence of homelessness for them. It is the humane and morally correct decision to make, and it is affordable.

Thank you.

Wayne Dernetz,
9th Street, Del Mar
[email protected]
7 May 2, 2022 Item 13
1 Melinda Gould
From: Alice Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 9:49 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Del Mar Rental Assistance: Agenda #13
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 City Manager Ashley Jones, Please adopt the Staff Report's recommendation to extend the rental assistance subsidy program until June 2023. I would like to see the program funded beyond 2023 to allow its expiration through natural attrition as the existing participants leave by their own choice.

Very Best,
Alice Brown
484 Avenida Primavera
Del Mar
1 May 2, 2022 Item 13
1 Melinda Gould
From: Scott Garrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:29 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: David Druker; Dwight Worden; Terry Gaasterland
Subject: Agenda item 13, Del Mar Rental Assistance
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.

I'm writing to offer my support for continued funding of the Del Mar Rental Assistance Program. As an affluent community we should be able to continue this program that provides meaningful assistance to some of our most vulnerable neighbors.

Thank you,
Scott Garrett
343 9th street
1 May 2, 2022 Item 13
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Red Dot Rental Subsidy
Importance: High
On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 11:34 AM james emerson <[email protected]> wrote:

City Council Members,
You made a legal commitment to the state to continue the rental subsidy program for four families in section 7A of the 6th cycle of the housing element in the Community Plan. Please honor that legal and moral commitment and cease eviction threats.

Bud Emerson
1 May 2, 2022 Item 13
1 Melinda Gould
From: Deborah Lyons <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 2:01 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Dwight Worden; Dan Quirk; Tracy Martinez; Terry Gaasterland; David Druker; Ashley Jones
Subject: Del Mar Rental subsidy Program item 13 ⬤
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To: The City Council:

I respectfully apologise for this late followup red dot but I just read this paragraph posted on the agenda in the 6th cycle housing element. Please explain why this is not applicable to the four residents and their housing subsidy. It appears to me this is a legal mandate to continue their subsidies.

Through Housing Program 7A, the City will ensure that the funds accrued in the City’s Housing Reserve Fund and Housing Assistance Fund remain available during the 6th Cycle for implementation of at least four lower income households via rental subsidy and/or new affordable housing (i.e.i.e., for the acquisition of land and construction of affordable units to be made available for individuals or families of extremely low, very low or low- income levels).

Thank You,
Deborah Lyons
410 9th St, Del Mar, CA 92014
858-354-9637
1 May 2, 2022 Item 13

CTY COUNCIL AGENDA QUESTIONS
MAY 2, 2022
Item 6 - SANDAG Shoreline Monitoring MOU

1. Has the primary Scope of Work affiliated with the MOU changed other than adding provisions related to 2023-24?
The proposed MOU amendment represents two years of program costs that cover relatively the same scope of work as covered in the prior five program years. The consultant providing the services has changed as reflected in the new contract for consulting services (Attachment D of the Agenda Report). The new contract includes an optional task for a tidal datum update (Attachment E of the Agenda Report), which is based on the timing of national updates to datum that occur every 19 years. This update was not completed during the initial MOU.

Item 9 – De Novo Hearing (Ziskin)

1. The staff report indicates: As proposed, the project conforms to all development standards of the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) and no variances or other deviations are proposed. This is literally true, but a bit misleading. The lot size is substandard and non-conforming, and it looks like the front yard setback is 6 inches short, at least at the upper level. I presume since the lot is substandard in size it is utilizing the 2,000 sq. ft. FAR allowance rather than a calculated FAR, which would be 1,753 sq. ft.? But, the lot is still substandard and non-conforming as to lot size, no?
The lot size is substandard and non-conforming but the project itself is otherwise conforming in terms of:
- Setbacks (including the gutter overhang which is an allowance pursuant to DMMC

30.86.200 M. 2.)
- FAR- this zone allows either 25% or 2,000 sf whichever is greater (2,000 sf was the greater of the two for this project)
- Lot coverage

2. Does City staff (or the city engineer) have an opinion on the grading issue--does our staff agree with the applicant's engineer that the grading and fill is needed for drainage?
In staff’s conversations with Guillermo Landoni, Project Engineer with MBI International, it is staff’s understanding that the fill grading to promote natural drainage to the street is preferred since its more reliable but that the project could include pump systems if necessary.

3. Is there room on the site for an ADU to be added if the current proposal is approved and built?
1 May 2, 2022 Items 6,8,9,11,12
Yes, it does appear there is space in the rear yard should the Applicants decide to pursue an ADU in the future. This would be applied for under a separate non-discretionary review separate from any Design Review process for the house. The Applicants have not expressed an interest to the City for an ADU at this time.

4. Is the Existing Structure Square Footage Correct? Is the new house smaller than the existing?
Staff has checked in with the project architect and was given the following updated information regarding the existing house square footage:

Existing house: 1,650 sf
Existing garage: 457 sf
Total: 2,107 sf
The proposed floor area for the new home is 2,000 sf:

House: 1,595 sf
Garage: 405 sf
Based on this information the living space of the new house would appear to be less than that of the existing.

Item 8 – Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Pilot Program Extension

1. Is it correct that in 2018, when the City’s one restricted ADU was approved, the 500 square foot Floor Area Ratio (FAR) bonus was needed to allow that ADU as at the time ADUs were not FAR exempt, but thereafter in 2020 state law and the city code were amended to exempt ADUs from FAR?
The State law ADU regulations in effect in 2018 provided for local jurisdictions to calculate the floor area of an ADU and limit it to the maximum FAR specified per local zoning. As such, the local regulations in effect in 2018 limited FAR accordingly. In 2020, one of the many ADU State law changes that further limited local control at the time was a change to exempt ADUs from counting toward the maximum floor area of a lot.

On May 21, 2018, the City Council adopted an ADU Pilot Program that made available a 500 square foot floor area bonus to any owner committing to deed restrict an ADU for rental as a low-income unit for 30 years. Only one property owner has executed a contract with the City since the ADU Pilot Program took effect. Currently, that owner has a contract in effect that allows the owner to obtain permits for approval of a 500 square foot floor area bonus above the maximum floor area limit of the applicable base zone.

The ADU itself does not count toward the floor area maximum. The floor area bonus available pursuant to the contract can be applied toward a proposed addition on the lot such as a bedroom addition to the primary dwelling unit. 2 May 2, 2022 Items 6,8,9,11,12

2. Is the 500 square foot bonus under the ADU pilot program still valuable because it can be used for the main house which is still subject to FAR rules, even though the bonus is not needed for the ADU itself?
The 500 square foot floor area bonus is the only incentive currently available. The potential for additional floor area is something of value to property owners; however, the City has only had one participating owner during the four years that the incentive program has been available. In accordance with Housing Element Program 2A the City will be exploring additional incentives for the City Council to consider as a means to encourage additional participation in the program with the intent to produce additional deed restricted ADUs for low income households. The adopted Housing Element identifies a target of 15 deed restricted ADUs for low income households to be produced by the end of the 6th Cycle in 2029.

3. Per the pilot program extension ordinance, use of the 500 sq. ft. bonus on other than the ADU is subject to DRB review. Would the DRB be able to deny or reduce the scope of the bonus if it concludes that the Design Review Ordinance (DRO) provisions on bulk and mass, scale, privacy, unreasonable view blockage, etc. so require?
That is correct that the 500 square foot floor area bonus is subject to design review approval, which is determined based on compliance with the DRO. Implementation of the 500 square foot floor area bonus is something that the City is contractually obligated to accommodate. The City would work with the applicant as needed to accommodate a project that complies with the DRO.

4. It seems like there could be conflicts between the bonus and DRB rules. Would enforcement of the deed restriction be contingent on DRB approval of use of the 500 sq. ft. bonus to the satisfaction of the owner?
The approval process for implementation of the floor area bonus is a policy decision that was determined by the City Council. The City Council has authority to modify the applicable incentives and approval process by amending the ordinance for the incentive program.

5. Is there a proposed expiration date on the extension of the ADU Pilot Program? The existing ordinance is set to expire on June 1, 2022, unless extended by action of the City Council. If the proposed ordinance to extend the program is adopted, it will extend the program for an additional two-year period, and could be further extended through City Council action beyond that time. See page 2 of the proposed ordinance under the last whereas statement.
3 May 2, 2022 Items 6,8,9,11,12
Item 11 – City Council Workshop Follow-Up Item

1. Are any of the potential median improvement projects related to undergrounding and chargeable to Measure Q, i.e. are any medians being redone as part of undergrounding?
For the most part, none of the potential median projects are located within or near a current utility undergrounding project area. The circle at 15th Street/Avenida Primavera/Crest Road is within Area X1A, which is currently being designed; however, no work associated with that median is contemplated as part of the undergrounding project. In general, median landscape improvements would not be considered part of the undergrounding project unless existing median landscaping was being displaced or impacted by the undergrounding construction, which at this time, is not anticipated to be an issue.

2. Is the Adopt a Spot process available for homeowners who might want to take on improvement of a section of median or the 15th street circle? It seems that it might be. Here are excerpts from the City website on the topic: The Adopt-a-Spot program allows caring neighbors the opportunity to initiate, plan, and develop a long-term program providing beautification of a neighborhood Spot. A Spot may be any public space within Del Mar…A small landscaped space, such as a parkway, median or chicane.

Unfortunately, median Adopt-a-Spots are problematic and create liability and exposure for the City in that it is unsafe to place members of the public in locations that interface with vehicles, which is the case with all of the City’s medians. The language on the City’s website is out of date and will be updated to remove the reference to medians as possible Adopt-a-Spot locations.

3. Is TRANSNET (e.g. MOE) funding available to fund median work? All the City’s Transnet funding is currently earmarked for the Camino del Mar Bridge project. Previously, the City had used TRANSNET funding for median improvements such as Jimmy Durante Boulevard Roundabout and Camino del Mar, south of 4th Street.

4. Does DMVA have median work in its work program?
No, median improvements are not included in the DMVA scope of work.

5. Under City Council goals (Item 11), #8 states” Adoption of an Ordinance Allowing for Cannabis and CBD Retail Stores”. The majority supported looking into CBD product (i.e. ointments) but did not support the sale of cannabis.

The title of this item is directly from the Council “wish list,” which stayed the same for each of the identified items, with a status update provided for each. It is correct that the Council only gave directly to follow-up on what would be involved with updating the City’s ordinance to allow for CBD retail products, which is summarized by staff in this section of 4 May 2, 2022 Items 6,8,9,11,12
the agenda report. As discussed at the workshop, the City currently has prohibitions in place for the sale of all kinds of cannabis-related products. This includes all parts, derivatives, and products of the plant, including medical and non-medical marijuana, as well as CBD. The scope of work identified in the agenda report on page 9 outlines what would be involved if the City Council desires to amend the cannabis provisions to accommodate CBD sales and account for changes in applicable State laws. The original Council “wish list” item discussed during the March 9th Council workshop was entitled “Adoption of an Ordinance Allowing for Cannabis and CBD Retail Sales/Stores,” though during the workshop, the Council narrowed the focus to look at allowing CBD sales.

6. I know that Objective Design Standards for multi-family dwelling units are included in the City work plan and budgeted but shouldn’t they be listed in the City Council “wish list” as a top priority?
The March 9th City Council Goal Setting workshop included a discussion of 17 potential City Council “wish list” items. These were projects identified by City Councilmembers prior to the Goal Setting workshop as projects to potentially incorporate into the City’s work plan for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. Since development of the Objective Design Standards for multi-family dwelling units is already included in the City’s work plan and budgeted, that project is therefore not considered a “wish list” item because it is already funded and on the work plan.

The adopted Housing Element Program 6G Objective Design Standards is an action program to be completed by June 2023. This program has been on the City Council’s adopted work plan for FY 2022-2023 with allocated budget since June 2021.

Item 12 – Proposed Citywide Staffing Plan

1. Will the BCPO be restricted to issuing citations only for offenses committed in her/his presence, or can a citation be issued based on the signed complaint of a citizen or other witness? DMMC Section 1.08.070 A states: A Code Enforcement Officer issued a badge number by the City is authorized to issue a citation for an infraction of the Municipal Code occurring in the Officer's presence.

The City’s Beach and Community Patrol Officer may detain individuals, without restraint, when an infraction is witnessed. Procedurally, for a citation to be issued, they, or another City employee with citation authority, must witness the infraction. They do not have the full range of Peace Officer arrest powers and, in the case of non-witnessed crimes, those that require investigation, or there is potential danger to the Officer, they, like our other City staff, observe and report while requesting additional resources from the Sheriff’s Department. The position offers a high-touch based approach to addressing municipal code violations during periods of high demand as well as working closely with both Parking and Code Enforcement to help expand the hours of their services.
5 May 2, 2022 Items 6,8,9,11,12