Agenda, regular meeting, first session — Del Mar City Council, July 25, 2022 (part 2 of 4)

BACKGROUND:

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

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

ANALYSIS:

Project Description:

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

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

Summary of the applicant’s proposal:

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

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

Front yard setback 20 ft. 20 ft.

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

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

FAR 25% 25%
Max. lot coverage 40%. 28%
2 December 15, 2021 Item 05
45 May 2, 2022 Item 09 68 July 25, 2022 Item 10

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

Page 3 of 12 ends

Height limitation 26 ft. 24 ft. 2 in.

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

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

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

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

Landscape/Hardscape:

The majority of the existing vegetation on-site is proposed to be replaced with all new landscaping except for the following:
o Two trees on the southwest side of the property- a Ngaio tree and a Weeping Fig tree; and o One lime tree at the northwest side of the property; and o The Eugenia trees lining the north and east property line 3 December 15, 2021 Item 05
46 May 2, 2022 Item 09 69 July 25, 2022 Item 10

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

Page 4 of 12 ends

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

Materials:

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

Story Poles:

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

CITIZENS’ PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
Pursuant to DMMC Chapter 23.08, a Citizens’ Participation Program (CPP) shall be required (prior to formal submittal of an application for review by the City) for the any of the following: 1) a proposed 500 square-foot or larger (detached) structure; 2) the proposed addition of a new second story to a currently single-story structure; or 3) when the Planning Director, in consultation with the Chair of the Design Review Board, determines a project holds potential to cause adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The intent of the CPP process is to inform neighbors of a development proposal early in its design phase and to provide opportunities to meet with the applicant and discuss potential concerns (if any) prior to a formal hearing of the item. 4 December 15, 2021 Item 05
47 May 2, 2022 Item 09 70 July 25, 2022 Item 10

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

Page 5 of 12 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Potential Issue Area #1: Neighborhood Compatibility- Two-Story Structure in One-Story Neighborhood:
5 December 15, 2021 Item 05
48 May 2, 2022 Item 09 71 July 25, 2022 Item 10

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

Page 6 of 12 ends

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

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

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

These features cumulatively result in a new two-story structure which is potentially in conflict with DRO 23.08.077 C, in that the new house could have the appearance of being to be out of scale with other houses in the immediate neighborhood. Surrounding development within 300’ of the subject property, on the north side of 8th Street (houses on the south side of 8th Street are in the City of San Diego), is primarily one-story or where two-stories occur, they are setback significantly on the lot.
6 December 15, 2021 Item 05
49 May 2, 2022 Item 09 72 July 25, 2022 Item 10

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

Page 7 of 12 ends

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

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

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

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

5.5’ taller than the residences in the immediate neighborhood.

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

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

Additionally, Design Guideline D.4 C. recommends that single-story design elements such as entries with two-story volume or heights should be avoided when out of character with neighboring development. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board review the overall form and height of the proposed entry feature to determine whether, as designed, there is a conflict with the standard 7 December 15, 2021 Item 05
50 May 2, 2022 Item 09 73 July 25, 2022 Item 10

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

Page 8 of 12 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

A separate Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Application (TVS21-001) was considered and 8 December 15, 2021 Item 05
51 May 2, 2022 Item 09 74 July 25, 2022 Item 10

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

Page 9 of 12 ends

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

LAND CONSERVATION PERMIT LC21-008:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The existing site slopes from an elevation of approximately 247 feet msl at the southeast corner down to 243 feet msl on the northwest portion of the lot (approximately a 4 foot difference). The project proposes raising the building pad from 243.3 to 245.9 except for at the entryway where the grade is proposed to be raised to 251.44 feet (fill of approximately 7.64 feet). According to the cut/fill exhibit the entirety of the lot is to be graded in some way and, because of this, all vegetation is also likely to 9 December 15, 2021 Item 05
52 May 2, 2022 Item 09 75 July 25, 2022 Item 10

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

Page 10 of 12 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. That for all development proposals involving the construction or placement of a shoreline protection device, that the proposed development is consistent with and implements the applicable requirements of the Beach Overlay Zone and Setback 10 December 15, 2021 Item 05
53 May 2, 2022 Item 09 76 July 25, 2022 Item 10

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

Page 11 of 12 ends

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

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

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

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

CORRESPONDENCE:

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

RECOMMENDATIONS:

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

Respectfully Submitted,
_____________________
Jennifer Gavin
Associate Planner
11 December 15, 2021 Item 05
54 May 2, 2022 Item 09 77 July 25, 2022 Item 10

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

Page 12 of 12 ends

EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A- Materials Board
Exhibit B- Story Pole Certification
Exhibit C- CPP Report
Exhibit D- DRO Compliance Letter
Exhibit E- Land Conservation Permit Justification Letter Exhibit F- Correspondence
Exhibit G- Conditions of Approval
12 December 15, 2021 Item 05
55 May 2, 2022 Item 09 78 July 25, 2022 Item 10

BRIAN CHURCH ARCHITECTURE
507SouthCedrosAvenue,SolanaBeach,CA

ZISKINRESIDENCE
6248THSTREET,DELMAR,CA

TPOROOFING
(SOLARGRAY)
BRICK
(BEIGES)

FRONTELEVATION
STUCCO
(GRAY)

RAILINGANDWINDOWS
(BLACK)

SIDING COPPERTRIM
(GRAY)
Exhibit A 13 December 15, 2021 Item 05
Attachment C
56 May 2, 2022 Item 09 79 July 25, 2022 Item 10
6 7 8
9 10
12 11
13 1
15 14
2 4 3
16 17
26' - 2 3/4" 12' - 6 1/2" 7' - 10 1/8"
36' - 6 5/8"
18' - 6 1/8" 23' - 1 1/2" 4' - 11 3/4"
2' - 6 3/8" 5' - 6" 16' - 4" 12' - 2 1/4" 14' - 4" 6' - 8 1/8" 1' - 2 1/4"
0' - 9"
5 Brian Church
Architecture
507 S. Cedros Ave
Solana Beach, CA
DATE:SHEETSCALE:

STATE OF

CALIFORNIABRIAN CHURCH

LICENSED ARCHITECT
REN.

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

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

STORY POLE SCHEDULE
UNIT
POLE #

BASE POLE

ELEVATION
TOP OF
POLE

ELEVATION

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

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

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

POLE IS TO BE REVISED ON THE ELEVATIONS TO INCLUDE THE MSL OF THE EXISTING GRADE Exhibit B
14 December 15, 2021 Item 05
Attachment C
57 May 2, 2022 Item 0980 July 25, 2022 Item 10
4 15
2 14
13 11
3 1
12 F.Y.S.B.
3 2
14 11 9 7
8 13
1 12 10
Brian Church
Architecture
507 S. Cedros Ave
Solana Beach, CA
DATE:SHEETSCALE:

STATE OF

CALIFORNIABRIAN CHURCH

LICENSED ARCHITECT
REN.

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

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

SOUTH ELEVATION (FRONT)

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

EAST ELEVATION
Exhibit B
15 December 15, 2021 Item 05
Attachment C
58 May 2, 2022 Item 0981 July 25, 2022 Item 10
6 16
1415
5 4
17 10 7 6 16
8 5
9 17
Brian Church
Architecture
507 S. Cedros Ave
Solana Beach, CA
DATE:SHEETSCALE:

STATE OF

CALIFORNIABRIAN CHURCH

LICENSED ARCHITECT
REN.

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

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

WEST ELEVATION

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

NORTH ELEVATION
Exhibit B
16 December 15, 2021 Item 05
Attachment C
59 May 2, 2022 Item 0982 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 CPP Final Report CPP20-006
06/03/21
Project address: 624 8th Street
Project Name: Ziskin House
APN 300-252-1400
Existing conditions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matt and Chelsea both voiced their concern that they wanted to maintain privacy from their back yard and didn’t want to commit to any trimming of the hedges – especially since their hedge/trees were effectively cut down just before the Ziskin’s moved into the house in 2015. 17 December 15, 2021 Item 05
60 May 2, 2022 Item 09 83 July 25, 2022 Item 10
2 We decided that the best plan for the house would be to push it as far south as possible on the lot.

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

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

Follow up meetings:

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

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

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

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

Correspondence
After the story poles were erected, we received email correspondence from the neighbors at 635 Hoska and letters from a few others in the community stating a concern that the proposed house would block the views from 635 Hoska to the east. I responded to most of those letters. See correspondence exhibits (attached)
CPP Meeting 2
The second CPP meeting was held via a Zoom call on May 13th 24th at 4:00 with the following in attendance:
• Matt and Chelsea Ziskin (owners)
• Brian Church (architect)
• Diane Maxwell (428 8th)
• Arline and David Paa (612 8th)
• Henrik Jensen (434 8th)
• Janet Wilson and Nigel Hook (635
Hoska)
• Kelly McQuade (623 Hoska)
• Kelly and Pat Welch (431 8th)
• Marcellite & Peter Lasensky (642
Hoska)
• Pam Richards (representing Judd and
Jill Ellis from 442 8th)
• Suzy McNamara (623 Hoska)
• Wynne Spotifora (611 Hoska)
• Kathleen Moore (14038 Condesa)
• Barb and Tim Davis (755 Kalamath)
18 December 15, 2021 Item 05
61 May 2, 2022 Item 09 84 July 25, 2022 Item 10
3 Project Presentation
Based on the negative correspondence received from several residents (not direct neighbors), Matt took a few minutes at the beginning of the meeting provide a more detailed history on the trees and associated views from 635 Hoska. Below is his statement and photos. “We are aware that our immediate neighbors to the east have been active in recruiting people to oppose our project on the basis that we are obscuring their ocean view with our second story. I would like to provide some background on this issue which began when we purchased the home in 2015. The view in question did not exist prior to 2015 when our neighbors instructed their gardener to trespass onto our property and cut down seventeen 50-year-old Eugenia trees on our property. The picture below was taken after our offer was accepted and we were in escrow. Two days later, we returned for our home inspection and were shocked to find the hedges which previously reached to the same height as the hedges to the north were cut down to stumps. This was done without permission to access the property or cut the trees. They made no attempt to contact the previous owner, the realtors, or the new owners. While the neighbors to the east have stated they regularly trimmed those trees to maintain their view, they have not been able to produce a single photo showing their view prior to 2015. During a boundary survey recently performed, it became clear the hedges are several feet onto our property and there is no grey area about who should have the right to trim the hedges. Further, in conversations with several people who spent time in the backyard with the previous owner, it is clear that these hedges had not been trimmed to afford a view prior to 2015. Over the last six years, our neighbors have continued to trim our hedges without our permission when we have been out of town. It has been an ongoing struggle and source of conflict. For those who have joined this call as Del Martians looking out for each other, I ask for your support. We have sought to be good neighbors and citizens of Del Mar with respect for the laws and rules that govern our city. We wanted to let everyone know the backstory regarding this "view" claim so people are aware of the illegal and unneighborly actions taken to produce this "view" in the first place.” Slides:
19 December 15, 2021 Item 05
62 May 2, 2022 Item 09 85 July 25, 2022 Item 10
BACKGROUND OF VIEW FROM 635 HOSKA
635 HOSKA PROPERTY
624 8TH STREET PROPERTY

EUGENIA TREES/HEDGES
N
20 December 15, 2021 Item 0563 May 2, 2022 Item 09 86 July 25, 2022 Item 10 BACKGROUND OF VIEW FROM 635 HOSKA
624 8TH STREET PROPERTY 635 HOSKA PROPERTY

EUGENIA TREES/HEDGES
N
21 December 15, 2021 Item 0564 May 2, 2022 Item 09 87 July 25, 2022 Item 10 BACKGROUND OF VIEW FROM 635 HOSKA
Photo of northeast corner of 624 8th St taken on March 20, 2015 from the roof while the home was in escrow.

Photos of northeast corner of 624 8th St taken on March 22, 2015 from the roof during our home inspection. The over 50 year old Eugenia hedges which are on the 624 8th St property had been cut to stumps by the 635 Hoska neighbors’ gardeners without permission to access the property or cut the trees. 3/20/2015
3/22/2015 3/22/2015
22 December 15, 2021 Item 0565 May 2, 2022 Item 09 88 July 25, 2022 Item 10 4 Design Presentation
We then presented the project design by sharing my computer screen with Zoom call attendees. We reviewed project plans, elevations, sections and viewed the 3-D model. We were able to show views of the proposed house from the perspective of surrounding properties. I explained the design strategies of the proposed house and explained that we had kept the house and second floor pushed as far south as possible to provide better view and privacy.

Plans:
23 December 15, 2021 Item 05
66 May 2, 2022 Item 09 89 July 25, 2022 Item 10
Exhibit C
24 December 15, 2021 Item 05
Attachment C
67 May 2, 2022 Item 09 90 July 25, 2022 Item 10
REF.

A5
1 A4 2
A4
1 2 A5
15' - 0"
PATIO

COVERED
ENTRY
PATIO
SPA

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

LANDSCAPE

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

STATE OF

CALIFORNIABRIAN CHURCH

LICENSED ARCHITECT
REN.

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

SITE PLAN
04/13/21
ZISKIN
624 8TH STREET, DEL MAR, CA
1/8" = 1'-0"

SITE PLAN NORTH

SUBMITTALS / REVISIONS
# Date Revision/Submittal
Exhibit C
25 December 15, 2021 Item 05
Attachment C
68 May 2, 2022 Item 09
91 July 25, 2022 Item 10
UP
A5 1
A4
2 1 A4
A5
2 S
.

Y
.

S
.

B
.
7' - 6"
7' - 6"
25' - 0"
MASTER
BEDROM
PATIO
(COVERED)
PATIO
BEDROOM 2
BEDROOM 3
GARAGE
MUD
19' - 0"
20' - 1 3/8"
2%
1%
[No Slope]

EXISTING RETAINING WALLON ADJACENT PROPERTY

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

LANDSCAPE

CMU FENCE WITH STUCCO (NON-RETAINING)

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

STATE OF

CALIFORNIABRIAN CHURCH

LICENSED ARCHITECT
REN.

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

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

SUBMITTALS / REVISIONS
# Date Revision/Submittal
Exhibit C
26 December 15, 2021 Item 05
Attachment C
69 May 2, 2022 Item 09
92 July 25, 2022 Item 10
REF.

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

LIVING KITCHEN
BUTLER
PANTRY

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

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

STATE OF

CALIFORNIABRIAN CHURCH

LICENSED ARCHITECT
REN.

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

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

SUBMITTALS / REVISIONS
# Date Revision/Submittal
Exhibit C
27 December 15, 2021 Item 05
Attachment C
70 May 2, 2022 Item 09
93 July 25, 2022 Item 10
A5 1
A4
2 1 A4
A5
2 Brian Church Architecture
507 S. Cedros Ave
Solana Beach, CA 92075
(858) 793-3437
DATE:SHEETSCALE:

STATE OF

CALIFORNIABRIAN CHURCH

LICENSED ARCHITECT
REN.

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

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

ROOF PLATE

SUBMITTALS / REVISIONS
# Date Revision/Submittal
NORTH
Exhibit C
28 December 15, 2021 Item 05
Attachment C
71 May 2, 2022 Item 09
94 July 25, 2022 Item 10
21' - 1"
Brian Church Architecture
507 S. Cedros Ave
Solana Beach, CA 92075
(858) 793-3437
DATE:SHEETSCALE:

STATE OF

CALIFORNIABRIAN CHURCH

LICENSED ARCHITECT
REN.

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

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
04/13/21
ZISKIN
624 8TH STREET, DEL MAR, CA
1/4" = 1'-0"

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

NORTH ELEVATION

SUBMITTALS / REVISIONS
# Date Revision/Submittal
Exhibit C
29 December 15, 2021 Item 05
Attachment C
72 May 2, 2022 Item 09
95 July 25, 2022 Item 10
R.Y.S.B.
25' - 0"
F.Y.S.B.
20' - 0"
Brian Church Architecture
507 S. Cedros Ave
Solana Beach, CA 92075
(858) 793-3437
DATE:SHEETSCALE:

STATE OF

CALIFORNIABRIAN CHURCH

LICENSED ARCHITECT
REN.

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

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
04/13/21
ZISKIN
624 8TH STREET, DEL MAR, CA
1/4" = 1'-0"

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

EAST ELEVATION

SUBMITTALS / REVISIONS
# Date Revision/Submittal
Exhibit C
30 December 15, 2021 Item 05
Attachment C
73 May 2, 2022 Item 09
96 July 25, 2022 Item 10
Brian Church Architecture
507 S. Cedros Ave
Solana Beach, CA 92075
(858) 793-3437
DATE:SHEETSCALE:

STATE OF

CALIFORNIABRIAN CHURCH

LICENSED ARCHITECT
REN.

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

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

STREET VIEW SE

STREET VIEW SW

VIEW FROM NEVIEW FROM NW

SUBMITTALS / REVISIONS
# Date Revision/Submittal
Exhibit C
31 December 15, 2021 Item 05
Attachment C
74 May 2, 2022 Item 09
97 July 25, 2022 Item 10
10 9 8
3 2
4 11 7 5
67 4' - 6"
19' - 9" 23' - 11" 4' - 11"
40' - 8" 7' - 11"
4' - 6" 14' - 4" 6' - 7"
37' - 9"
8' - 0" 29' - 9"
1' - 5" 16' - 2" 12' - 2"
3' - 0"
3' - 0"
20' - 0"
12' - 11" 7' - 6"
42' - 9"
270.43 CHIMNEY
3' - 0"
2' - 0"
259.58
266.70 266.70
259.58 259.58
259.58
266.70
266.70
260.11
266.70
5' - 2"
3' - 8"

OVERHANG OUTRIGGER

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

STATE OF

CALIFORNIABRIAN CHURCH

LICENSED ARCHITECT
REN.

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

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

STORY POLE SCHEDULE
POLE #

BASE POLE

ELEVATION
TOP OF
POLE

ELEVATION

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

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

POLE IS TO BE REVISED ON THE ELEVATIONS TO INCLUDE THE MSL OF THE EXISTING GRADE 3/16" = 1'-0"

STORY POLE PLAN
NORTH
Exhibit C
32 December 15, 2021 Item 05
Attachment C
75 May 2, 2022 Item 09
98 July 25, 2022 Item 10
33 December 15, 2021 Item 05
76 May 2, 2022 Item 09 99 July 25, 2022 Item 10
34 December 15, 2021 Item 05
77 May 2, 2022 Item 09 100 July 25, 2022 Item 10
5 Discussion
We then listened to the input from the attendees. An outline of comments is presented below.

Diane Maxwell (428 8th Street):

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

Arline and David Paa (612 8th Street):

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

Henrik Jensen (434 8th Street):

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

Nigel Hook (635 Hoska Drive):

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

Janet Wilson (635 Hoska Drive):

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

Kelly McQuade (623 Hoska Drive):

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

Kelly Welch (431 8th Street):

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

Pat Welch (431 8th Street):

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

Marcellite and Peter Lasensky (642 Hoska Drive):

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

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

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

Suzy McNamara (623 Hoska Drive):

Had technical difficulties with her microphone but texted that she would provide comments later.
35 December 15, 2021 Item 05
78 May 2, 2022 Item 09 101 July 25, 2022 Item 10
6 Wynne and Paul Spotifora (611 Hoska Drive)
Was happy to say she couldn’t even see the story poles from their property. They liked the privacy and were glad to see the house pushed to the south.

Barb and Tim Davis (755 Kalamath Drive)
Liked the design and noted that it was within all DROs and Design Guidelines. 36 December 15, 2021 Item 05
79 May 2, 2022 Item 09 102 July 25, 2022 Item 10
7 Correspondence
Letters from the following parties are provided below.
• Janet Wilson
• Camilla Rang
• Grant Larson
• Jayne Haines
• Brooke and Chris Garcia
37 December 15, 2021 Item 05
80 May 2, 2022 Item 09 103 July 25, 2022 Item 10
From: [email protected]
To: "Janet Wilson"
Bcc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Story poles at 624 8th Street / Janet & Nigel"s Ocean View Date: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 11:35:03 AM
Hi Janet,
I got your photos and saw that you had called. Sorry for the slow response, I’ve been buried at work. All the residential work is going nuts since the lockdowns.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matt allowing landscaping to grow to deliberately block our ocean view is not working towards a mutually beneficial solution. Even worse, forcing us to spend 3K is not working toward a mutually beneficial solution. Designing a structure which clearly blocks our declared primary living area view will almost certainly result in rework. You are a Del Mar architect and you should be advising your clients accordingly.
38 December 15, 2021 Item 05
81 May 2, 2022 Item 09 104 July 25, 2022 Item 10
I suggest you pick a time to stop by for a conversation.

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

Hi Brian,
I texted pictures earlier.

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

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

Janet,
Thanks, this photo is helpful.

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

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

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

We have view pictures taken after Jane Martin (previous owner) passed in 2015 and prior to Matt and Chelsea closing on the house. In 2015, Matt was extremely unhappy and, to this day (6 years later), Matt is still very bitter. 39 December 15, 2021 Item 05
82 May 2, 2022 Item 09 105 July 25, 2022 Item 10
40 December 15, 2021 Item 05
83 May 2, 2022 Item 09 106 July 25, 2022 Item 10
Chelsea and I were forming a friendship and discussing her plans. I wasn't opposed to a 2-story house as long as it didn't affect our view. She understood the rules of the game. Unfortunately, the relationship I was forming with Chelsea has deteriorated and we no longer speak to each other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,
Brian Church AIA
Brian Church Architecture
41 December 15, 2021 Item 05
84 May 2, 2022 Item 09 107 July 25, 2022 Item 10
From: Camilla Rang
To: Matt Ziskin
Cc: Brian Church
Subject: Re: CPP20-006, 624 8th Street, Del Mar
Date: Thursday, June 3, 2021 5:04:47 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
Thank you so much for reaching out to me, Matt. Much appreciated. It is a very unfortunate situation. Yes, they should not have trimmed your hedge without your permission, I think they are aware of that and have apologized.

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

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

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

We appreciate your willingness to support fellow Del Mar residents. It appears you were not able to join the CPP2 meeting so I wanted to share some of the information related to the view issue that was discussed in the meeting that you may not be aware of. The images below show the homes in question with 635 Hoska outlined in red and 624 8th outlined in yellow. 42 December 15, 2021 Item 05
85 May 2, 2022 Item 09 108 July 25, 2022 Item 10
We are aware that our immediate neighbors to the east have been active in recruiting people to oppose our project on the basis that we are obscuring their ocean view with our proposed second story. I would like to provide some background on this issue which began when we purchased the home in 2015. The view in question did not exist prior to 2015 when our neighbors instructed their gardener to trespass onto our property and cut down 17 of the 50-year-old Eugenia trees on our property. The first picture below was taken after our offer was accepted and we were in escrow. Two days later, we returned for our home inspection and were shocked to find the hedges which previously reached to the same height as the hedges to the north were cut to stumps. This was done without permission to access the property or cut the trees. They made no attempt to contact the previous owner, the realtors, or the new owners.

While the neighbors to the east have stated they regularly trimmed those trees to maintain their view, they have not been able to produce any evidence of a view prior to 2015. During a boundary survey recently performed, it became clear the hedges are several feet onto our property and there is no grey area about who should have the right to trim the hedges. Further, in conversations with several people who spent time in the backyard with the previous owner, it is clear that these hedges had not been trimmed to afford a view prior to 2015. Over the last six years, our neighbors have continued to trim our hedges without our 43 December 15, 2021 Item 05
86 May 2, 2022 Item 09 109 July 25, 2022 Item 10
permission when we have been out of town. It has been an ongoing struggle and source of conflict. We have sought to be good neighbors and citizens of Del Mar with respect for the laws and rules that govern our city. We certainly are in favor of Del Martians looking out for each other and thought it would be important for you to know the backstory regarding this "view" claim so you are aware of the actions taken to produce this "view" in the first place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fortunately, the Design Review process is robust enough to sift through the irrelevant hyperbole and 44 December 15, 2021 Item 05
87 May 2, 2022 Item 09 110 July 25, 2022 Item 10
objectively consider all the facts before weighing in on a project.

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

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

As you must know, there is a municipal code in Del Mar that protects the view for house owners so it is really surprising that a project like this is even proposed without regard to the house owners east of the suggested building. To try to sneak in a 2-building by overgrowing and neglecting bushes and plants is a very dishonest way of doing things. I think you would have had better luck being front up honest. At this point, I don't see how you will even get a partly 2-story house approved.
45 December 15, 2021 Item 05
88 May 2, 2022 Item 09 111 July 25, 2022 Item 10
We are many Del Marians who are in the same situation where we have to deal with dishonest architects and new house owners and we will all stand with the owners of 635 Hoska Drive, protecting their view, just as they will stand with us when it's our turn. Del Mar is very special in regards to protecting the view of house owners and we want to keep it that way. One day, the owners of 624 8th Street will be in the same situation, someone wanting to build a tall house just in front of them, blocking their view, and they too will benefit of this very precious ordinance. It should be in their interest to keep it and protect it.

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

Sincerely,
Camilla Rang
159 10th Street, Del Mar, CA 92014
46 December 15, 2021 Item 05
89 May 2, 2022 Item 09 112 July 25, 2022 Item 10
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Bcc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: 624 8th St.

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

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

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

Hi Brian,
Hope all is well.

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

It also impacts their privacy.

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

Sincerely,
Grant Larson
Sent from the all new AOL app for Android
47 December 15, 2021 Item 05
90 May 2, 2022 Item 09 113 July 25, 2022 Item 10
From: Jayne Haines
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Del Mar views
Date: Thursday, May 13, 2021 4:44:01 PM
Thank you Brian,
I sent you an email concerning a neighbor whose views are threatened right now with a new build. She lives on 8th st. We stick together on these issues!
Jayne
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 13, 2021, at 4:49 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Hi Jayne,
> Thank you for your note and input. It wasn't clear from your letter whether you were saying your views were affected or you were simply supporting the preservation of view of others. I assume it is the latter, but please clarify. > I agree that views in Del Mar should be protected per the zoning ordinance.

As we work through the design
review process, we will carefully examine any potential view obstruction. I will include you in the distribution of materials and notifications going forward.
> Regards,
>
> Brian Church AIA
> Brian Church Architecture
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jayne Haines <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 1:40 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Del Mar views
>
> Hi Brian,
> I’m a resident who bought our home 28 years ago with great views, but it seems that some neighbors aren’t willing to work together to maintain those views. They either let their hedges (living walls) grow out of control or they erect story poles that will block neighbors’ precious views. >
> I ask you to help support all of us who cherish our way of life and the ocean views we worked hard to obtain. >
> Best,
> Jayne Haines
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
48 December 15, 2021 Item 05
91 May 2, 2022 Item 09 114 July 25, 2022 Item 10
From: [email protected]
To: "Jennifer Gavin"; "Brooke Garcia"
Cc: "Christopher Garcia"; "Joseph Smith"
Bcc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: 624 8th Street
Date: Thursday, June 3, 2021 10:18:35 AM
Hi Brooke,
We’ve taken pictures from various spots in the neighborhood to understand the views and privacy to and from the Matt and Chelsea’s house. I have photos from the street above your house (from Hoska looking toward the site) but nothing from within your property. It would be helpful if you could provide photos from your back yard and from inside your house to give us an idea of the views from there.

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

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

Jennifer Gavin | Associate Planner
City of Del Mar | Planning and Community Development
1050 Camino del Mar
49 December 15, 2021 Item 05
92 May 2, 2022 Item 09 115 July 25, 2022 Item 10
Del Mar, CA 92014
(858.755.9313 | 7 858.755.2794 | 8 [email protected]
Please note that effective July 7, 2020, City Hall hours are 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM, Monday – Thursday. Until the COVID – 19 pandemic ends, service to the public will be provided remotely. Please check our City website at www.delmar.ca.us for more information regarding online services or to submit requests for information.

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

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

I am curious as to what stage of the Citizens Participation Program this project is currently in? Have both the Introductory Meeting and the Project Proposal meeting taken place? If so, will our comments be considered pursuant to Code 23.08.069, which would then require a, "written response to any concerns raised during the CPP Meeting process?" If not, how do we officially enter them into the record if both meetings have already occurred? This new construction would violate code 23.08.010, in that this new construction infringes on the property values, natural environment, and the aesthetic quality of the community--and in the case of our neighbors--devastates primary scenic views. It would, in effect, diminish the property values of all Del Mar residents in that it creates a frightening precedent. When purchasing a home in a scenic coastal environment, one considers how current houses obstruct views--and can then consider how future construction on an existing unit could further obscure views before making the decision to purchase any given home. This is a critical evaluation that potential homebuyers consider daily in communities such as Del Mar before making such a monumental investment. Current footprint certainly provides considerable information for prospective homebuyers when making that determination. 624 8th Street creates an entirely unique and alarming precedent because it would be impossible to assess the potential of a NEW structure built ANYWHERE on an adjacent property at ANY time. Purchasing a home is one of the most significant investments that most individuals make in a lifetime. How could one properly determine the value of a property if its most valuable characteristics--scenic ocean views---could potentially be disrupted at any given moment? Part of the code currently applies to "primary scenic view, " but in a 50 December 15, 2021 Item 05
93 May 2, 2022 Item 09 116 July 25, 2022 Item 10
community such as Del Mar with comfortable weather year round--many people derive enjoyment (and significant property value) from their yards--and not simply their homes. This proposed construction leaves in jeopardy the homes, property values, and quality of life for thousands of Del Mar residents.

The Garcias also were concerned about impacts on views.

Response:

Views
o The project has been designed to be located on the south side of the property to preserve as many views and privacy from the east as possible. o The views referenced appear to have been attained by the trees (which reside on the 624 8th St side of the property line) being cut down in 2015 by the residents of 635 Hoska without permission from the owners of 624 8th St. o The story poles are not visible from the primary living areas of 641 Hoska (Garcia) Privacy
o There are no windows proposed on the second floor facing east (toward 635 Hoska) except two small windows in the powder room and pantry
o The second-floor deck is proposed on the southwest corner, as far from 635 Hoska as possible
o Allowing the trees to grow back to their pre-2015 maturity would provide additional privacy.
52 December 15, 2021 Item 05
95 May 2, 2022 Item 09 118 July 25, 2022 Item 10
12/07/21
Design Review Standards Compliance Letter
Project address: 624 8th Street
Project Name: Ziskin House
City of Del Mar
Planning Department
Attn: Jennifer Gavin
Preservation of views
Due to existing trees and the configuration of the lot and neighboring homes, there are no primary scenic views across or through the lot. As discussed elsewhere, the neighbors to the east had claimed to have view through the lot from their home. This claim was unanimously refuted by the Planning Commission.

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

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

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

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

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

Exhibit D 53 December 15, 2021 Item 05
96 May 2, 2022 Item 09 119 July 25, 2022 Item 10
Overall compatibility
Neighboring houses comprise a variety of architectural styles and roof configurations (sloped and flat). The clean aesthetics and organic materials (stucco and wood) of the proposed house allow it to blend into the eclectic neighborhood and landscape. The flat roofs, and below-street level garage and first floor contribute to visually minimize the house’s appearance.

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

Design Review Guideline (Regarding staff comments)

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

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

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

4. C.9 Landscape and vegetation
a. As discussed above, several mature trees in the front (west side) are to be retained. Approximately thirty existing eugenia trees are to be retained along the Exhibit D 54 December 15, 2021 Item 05
97 May 2, 2022 Item 09 120 July 25, 2022 Item 10
north and east property lines. Several existing fruit trees are to be relocated onsite.
b. Some existing trees need to be removed because they are located in the center of the lot where they would preclude sensible siting of the new house. c. The house has been sited toward the front of the property in an attempt to maintain views from the yards of houses to the east.

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

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

Exhibit D 55 December 15, 2021 Item 05
98 May 2, 2022 Item 09 121 July 25, 2022 Item 10

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

Exhibit D 56 December 15, 2021 Item 05
99 May 2, 2022 Item 09 122 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Jennifer Gavin
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 10:08 AM
To: Jennifer Gavin
Cc: 'Matt Ziskin'
Subject: FW: Ziskin Residence - Site grading
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

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

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

Thanks,
Alberto Ortiz
Sampo Engineering
171 Saxony Rd. Suite 213
Encinitas, CA 92024
(760) 436-0660 ext. 113
Exhibit E 57 December 15, 2021 Item 05
100 May 2, 2022 Item 09 123 July 25, 2022 Item 10
2 (760) 436-0659 fax
www.sampoengineering.com
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 9:27 AM
To: Alberto Ortiz <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: Vince Sampo <[email protected]>; Zarel Lomeli <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Ziskin Residence - Vegetation call outs
Hi Alberto,
Several of the comments received from the Planning Department were regarding the amount of grading (fill) proposed.

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

Thanks,
Brian Church AIA
Brian Church Architecture
Exhibit E 58 December 15, 2021 Item 05
101 May 2, 2022 Item 09 124 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Jennifer Gavin
From: Arlinepaa <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 9:44 AM
To: Jennifer Gavin
Subject: DRB site visit - APN 300-252-14-00
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

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

Thanks,
Arline & David Paa
Exhibit F 59 December 15, 2021 Item 05
102 May 2, 2022 Item 09 125 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Jennifer Gavin
From: Jill Ellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 8:15 AM
To: Planning Mail Box
Subject: Support for Ziskin project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good morning.

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

Please tell me the best way to accomplish this.

Sincerely,
Jill Ellis
Exhibit F 60 December 15, 2021 Item 05
103 May 2, 2022 Item 09 126 July 25, 2022 Item 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G-8 [Height and Setback Certifications Prior to Framing Sign Off] Prior to sign-off on the framing inspection for the project, the applicant shall provide a statement from a Licensed Surveyor certifying that the building height and setbacks are in conformance with the approved plans for the project. The survey required herein shall be prepared using City of Del Exhibit G 61 December 15, 2021 Item 05
104 May 2, 2022 Item 09 127 July 25, 2022 Item 10
Mar approved vertical benchmarks for building height certification and reported to 0.01 of a foot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exhibit G 62 December 15, 2021 Item 05
105 May 2, 2022 Item 09 128 July 25, 2022 Item 10
G-12 [Receipt of Demolition Permit]
Prior to the demolition or removal of any structures on the project site, the applicant shall apply for and gain approval for: a Demolition Permit, as required pursuant to the DMMC; and an accompanying Coastal Development Permit, as applicable.

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

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

G-15 [Statement of Accuracy/Agreement Regarding Third-Party Lawsuits] Prior to the issuance of building permits or project commencement, whichever comes first, the applicant shall submit a statement to the Planning Department regarding the accuracy of submitted plans/materials and agreeing to hold the City of Del Mar harmless from third-party lawsuits filed challenging the City’s approval of this permit. The agreement shall also include a commitment to defend the City of Del Mar from any third-party lawsuits filed challenging the City’s approval of this Exhibit G 63 December 15, 2021 Item 05
106 May 2, 2022 Item 09 129 July 25, 2022 Item 10
permit. The form and content of the statement and agreement required herein shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning and Community Development Director, or his designee G-16 [Compliance with City Noise Regulations]
The applicant and all parties involved with implementation of the project shall comply with the regulations of the DMMC with regard to construction noise. The regulations stipulate that all construction activities are limited to the following periods: between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. / Monday through Friday and between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction activities are prohibited during other hours and on Sundays and City Holidays. The City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.20 of the Del Mar Municipal Code, includes the dates of City Holidays, and can be viewed on the City’s web page (www.delmar.ca.us).

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

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

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

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

ENGINEERING CONDITIONS:

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

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

E-3 [Installation of Public Improvements- Covenant therefore] E-3A The applicant shall perform street repairs on the full width of 8th Street adjacent to the property. 8th Street shall have dig-out performed on any distressed pavement and shall receive a 1-1/2” grind and overlay full width adjacent to property, as depicted on the Preliminary Grading Plan, which shall include all transitions, Exhibit G 64 December 15, 2021 Item 05
107 May 2, 2022 Item 09 130 July 25, 2022 Item 10
drainage facilities, and other improvements as deemed necessary by the City Engineer. Said improvements shall be subject to inspection and approval by the City Engineer. A separate cost estimate is required for the work within the public right-of-way. Additional review fees will be required based on the City’s standard fee schedule for public improvements;
E-3B Construct Modified San Diego Regional Standard Drawing G-14 type drive apron to the property;
E-3C A separate cost estimate is required for the work within the public right-of-way.

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

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

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

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

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

Survey shall extend minimum 25 feet beyond limits of work. Said map shall also Exhibit G 65 December 15, 2021 Item 05
108 May 2, 2022 Item 09 131 July 25, 2022 Item 10
show entire property boundary including any assumed found monuments, and bearings and distances based on record information;
E-5C Depict the location of property lines and topographic features of the site that adequately address how private storm water is to be collected, conveyed, and discharged on or across the subject site with respect to the proposed project; E-5D Include a grading cost estimate for review, based on the City of San Diego’s Unit Price List;
E-5E Include provisions to collect, convey, and discharge storm water in an appropriate manner, considering the added impact of impervious surface area to the site; E-5F Include provisions to ensure that storm water will not be concentrated and discharged across adjacent properties;
E-5G Include a Hydrology/Hydraulic Report prepared by a Registered Engineer that addresses how storm water will be adequately collected and conveyed on and across the subject property. The Report shall also address the tributary area for run-off directed to and across the subject property. The Report shall include calculations and details demonstrating that if proposed inlets/outlets, etc. are plugged or overloaded, the site is capable of conveying storm flows in a manner that is not detrimental (including flooding and erosion) to surrounding properties.

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

E-5I Include mitigation measures and project modifications as recommended in the required Geotechnical Report/investigation prepared for the project; E-5J Depict the location of erosion control devices to be implemented in the event of rainfall;
E-5K The methods for providing temporary erosion control during the construction phase of the project, complete with the inclusion of standard grading and erosion control notes on the plans;
E-5L Include methods to ensure retaining wall sub-drains and sump pumps will not discharge onto City streets, as they contribute to nuisance water. Sub-drains and sump pumps shall discharge on private property to allow percolation back into the soil;
Exhibit G 66 December 15, 2021 Item 05
109 May 2, 2022 Item 09 132 July 25, 2022 Item 10
E-5M Ensure existing or proposed private pipe outlets will not convey or discharge nuisance water (i.e., from irrigation, hardscape run-off, planter area drains, French drains, etc.) onto adjacent streets or into the public right-of-way. The applicant shall provide methods to eliminate the discharge of nuisance water; E-5N Ensure that the development will minimize the amount of impervious surface area and maximize the on-site dissipation of storm water run-off; E-5O Include storm drain run-off "Best Management Practices" that minimize the volumes of urban run-off discharge to City rights-of-way, as acceptable to the City Engineer. Indicate how the proposed bio-infiltration/retention area or bio-swale will discharge off-site without causing erosion;
E-5P Provide elevations and slope call-outs to clarify how water will drain around the proposed patio hardscape, with assurances the runoff will not be conveyed over sensitive topographic features;
E-5Q Include a five (5) foot wide buffer zone to be maintained along the edge of pavement along the street frontage. No obstructions (i.e., walls, trees, benches, etc.) shall be permitted within this area;
E-5R Include landscaping plans with characteristics that maximize infiltration, provide retention, reduce irrigation and storm water run-off, use efficient irrigation, and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; E-5S Ensure that the grading and other construction activities meet the provisions specified in the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), San Diego Region, Order R9-2013-0001, NPDES No. CAS0109266 – Section D.2 and subsequent orders;
E-5T Following construction completion, the project designer shall inspect as-built improvements. Significant discrepancies, if any, between the approved plans and as-built conditions shall be brought to the attention of the Planning and Community Development Department and City Engineer. An as-built plan prepared by the project designer will be required. Prior to final sign-off by the City Engineer, the project designer shall sign the as-built plan indicating that the project was completed in accordance with said plan; and E-5U Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall post a security in an amount approved by the City Engineer for the proposed grading. Said security shall be in a form acceptable to the City and shall remain in place until completion of the grading and final approval by the City. The amount shall be based on 25% of the approved grading cost estimate prepared as a part of the Grading Permit; E-6 [Geotechnical Report/investigation Requirement]
Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall provide a Geotechnical Report for the project. The Report shall be prepared, signed and sealed by a Certified Engineering Geologist and a Geotechnical Engineer or Registered Civil Engineer. This Report shall be Exhibit G 67 December 15, 2021 Item 05
110 May 2, 2022 Item 09 133 July 25, 2022 Item 10
subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, City Building Department, and if deemed necessary, a third-party with expertise in geotechnical issues. The report required herein shall:

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

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

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

Exhibit G 68 December 15, 2021 Item 05
111 May 2, 2022 Item 09 134 July 25, 2022 Item 10
If the borrow or disposal site is located outside of the City, the applicant shall provide evidence of receipt of required permits/authorizations.

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

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

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

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

Exhibit G 69 December 15, 2021 Item 05
112 May 2, 2022 Item 09 135 July 25, 2022 Item 10
E-11 [Soil Stabilization]
The applicant shall utilize sediment controls only as a supplement to erosion prevention for keeping sediment on-site during construction – NEVER as a single or primary method.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exhibit G 70 December 15, 2021 Item 05
113 May 2, 2022 Item 09 136 July 25, 2022 Item 10
E-17 [Proposed Retaining Wall]
The proposed retaining walls shall be designed and constructed completely within the property. No portion of the wall or footing shall extend across the property line. The footing limits of retaining walls shall be shown on the plans together with profiles of the proposed retaining walls located along property lines and right-of-ways.

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

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

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

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

Exhibit G 71 December 15, 2021 Item 05
114 May 2, 2022 Item 09 137 July 25, 2022 Item 10
E-21 [Site conditions]
E-21A The applicant shall restrict hours of work for the use of heavy equipment during grading and improvements between the hours of 7:30AM to 5:00PM, this includes the warmup of equipment. Saturday, Sunday and City holiday work is prohibited; E-21B Any under grounding of SDG&E facilities serving the site or other utilities shall be done at the applicant’s expense; and
E-21C All construction activities undertaken shall comply with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. In cases of conflict between the City’s Municipal Code, these standard conditions of approval, the governing priority shall be, to the extent legally permitted, as follows: 1) City’s Municipal Code regulations; 2) City’s General Plan; 3) Standard Conditions.

FIRE CONDITIONS:

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

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

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

Exhibit G 72 December 15, 2021 Item 05
115 May 2, 2022 Item 09 138 July 25, 2022 Item 10
F-9 [Construction Materials]
Prior to delivery of combustible building construction materials to the project site all of the following conditions shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Fire Department:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exhibit G 73 December 15, 2021 Item 05
116 May 2, 2022 Item 09 139 July 25, 2022 Item 10
F-19 [Fuel Modification Zones/Fire Breaks]
The applicant shall provide and maintain fire/fuel breaks to the satisfaction of the Del Mar Fire Department and California Fire Code. The size of fire/fuel breaks and composition shall be determined by the Fire Department and shown on the improvement /grading plans and final map and building plans.

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

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

WATER CONSERVATION CONDITIONS
WC-01 [Compliance with City and State Water Conservation Policies and Regulations] Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a Landscape Documentation Package (LDP) for the project prepared by a landscape architect or landscape contractor licensed by the State of California. The LDP required herein shall include anticipated water use calculations for the project's landscape and irrigation components. The LDP shall be accompanied by a certification from the preparer that the LDP is in compliance with the City's adopted water conservation policies in effect at the time of LDP preparation, including Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 23.60 (Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance) and any guidelines adopted by the City for such ordinance. The preparer shall also certify that the LDP is in compliance with the Governor's Executive Order Nos. B-29-15 and B-36-15, which call for compliance with landscape/irrigation water use standards set by the California Exhibit G 74 December 15, 2021 Item 05
117 May 2, 2022 Item 09 140 July 25, 2022 Item 10
Building Standards Commission and the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

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

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

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

SPECIAL CONDITIONS:

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

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

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

Exhibit G 75 December 15, 2021 Item 05
118 May 2, 2022 Item 09 141 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Jennifer Gavin
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 9:04 AM
To: Jennifer Gavin
Subject: Support for Ziskin Family Home - APN 300-252-14-00 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear DRB,
We would like to express our appreciation to the Ziskin family for enduring the extensive design review process, all while working and raising young children in our community. Their proposed home is lovely and will be a welcome improvement. Please expedite approval.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Wilson
Umatilla
Attachment D 119 May 2, 2022 Item 09 142 July 25, 2022 Item 10 1 of 4
December 15, 2021
Dear Planning Department and Members of the DRB,
My husband Nigel Hook and I have lived at 635 Hoska Drive since 1999. We have concerns about the project DRB21-018/ LC21-008/ CDP21-012 which is next door to us. Our home is north west of the 642 8th Street and this is the first time this project has been on your DRB agenda.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I would make the same choice.

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

Attachment D 120 May 2, 2022 Item 09 143 July 25, 2022 Item 10 2 of 4

23.08.077 – Same—Relationship to Neighborhood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Structural siting on the lot.

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

4. Architectural features and ornaments.

Staff report “raised entry feature … appearing to be two-story in volume” Attachment D 121 May 2, 2022 Item 09 144 July 25, 2022 Item 10 3 of 4

6. Existing and proposed open spaces areas.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you,
Nigel Hook and Janet Wilson
635 Hoska Drive
Nigel: (619) 977-3000
Janet: (619) 733-1428
Attachment D 122 May 2, 2022 Item 09 145 July 25, 2022 Item 10 624 8TH STREET CLARIFICATION
OF TREE DISPUTE WITH 635

HOSKA NEIGHBORS
Chelsea and Matt Ziskin and Family
December 15, 2021
Attachment D 123 May 2, 2022 Item 09 146 July 25, 2022 Item 10

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

Attachment D 124 May 2, 2022 Item 09 147 July 25, 2022 Item 10 A review of the substantial amount of public record
information available as a result of the rejected TSVS claim and rejected appeal. This information was carefully
reviewed by the Del Mar Planning Commission, City Staff, and Members of City Council. In all instances the claims of the residents of 635 Hoska were rejected. The following slides highlight the facts of the case.

FACTS REGARDING TREE ISSUE WITH
635 HOSKA NEIGHBORS

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

THE TREE ISSUE WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE DRB
Attachment D 125 May 2, 2022 Item 09 148 July 25, 2022 Item 10 FACT: BEFORE AND AFTER UNAUTHORIZED CUTTING
The view in question was created in March of 2015 while we were in escrow to purchase our home on 624 8th Street, our neighbors to the east (Nigel Hook and Janet Wilson) took it upon themselves to hire gardeners to trespass and cut down 17 Eugenia trees that were over 30 years old and 25 feet tall. They did so without consulting the owner at the time (Al Martin), his realtor (Chiquita Abbott), or the new purchasers of the home (us). The photos below show the damage caused to the trees.

Attachment D 126 May 2, 2022 Item 09 149 July 25, 2022 Item 10 Claims: The 2015 “trimming was consistent with previous trimmings” The trees were approximately 25 feet tall before the unauthorized cutting. Over the last 6 years, the trees have grown approximately 5 feet and are still well short of their height when we purchased the property.

FACT: EUGENIA TREE HEIGHT
Height of the Eugenias on 3/20/2015
Unaltered Google image from same perspective & date
Height of the Eugenias on 3/22/2015 Height of the Eugenias on 7/29/2021 Attachment D 127 May 2, 2022 Item 09 150 July 25, 2022 Item 10 • A survey completed in 2021 as a part of our design process confirmed the trees are on the 624 8th Street side
• This dispute has been going on since our neighbors cut the trees without permission in 2015. If the trees were on their side of the property, they could have surveyed the property and put an end to this dispute immediately.
• Why would the residents of 635 Hoska (who are well versed in city policies and procedures) have paid the ~$3,000 to file a TSVS complaint on 2/8/21 if they thought the trees were on their property.
• Our neighbors at 635 Hoska have communicated on public record of their knowledge the trees are on the 624 8th Street side of the property line (see screenshot from appeal request by Nigel Hook and Janet Wilson submitted on 10/26/21).

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

STREET SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE
Attachment D 128 May 2, 2022 Item 09 151 July 25, 2022 Item 10 FACT: THE RESIDENTS OF 635 HOSKA

DO NOT HAVE VIEW RIGHTS

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

THE PLANNING COMMISSION REJECTED THEIR CLAIM
BY A 5-0 UNANIMOUS DECISION
Attachment D 129 May 2, 2022 Item 09 152 July 25, 2022 Item 10 • March 20, 2015 We visited 624 8th Street while in escrow and took pictures showing the Eugenia trees standing at 25 feet tall.
• March 22, 2015 While in escrow to purchase 624 8th Street, we discovered the trees had been cut to 11 foot tall stumps by the 635 Hoska gardeners at the instruction of Nigel Hook. A report was filed with the sheriff’s department to report this incident.
• April 9, 2015 After much discussion and reviews of a draft agreement about how to handle the trees, Nigel Hook informed us he would not sign an agreement and we should defer to the city’s ordinances. • April 2017 After returning from a trip oversees to visit relatives, we found the 635 Hoska gardeners had trimmed our hedges again without asking us and without our permission. There were dead branches hanging from the hedges and on our side of the property showing a second instance of trespassing and vandalism. A report was filed with the sheriff’s department to report this incident. • November 2020 We encountered the 635 Hoksa gardeners trimming the tops of our hedges again without our permission. A report was filed with the sheriff’s department to report this incident. • February 2021 The 635 Hoska neighbors filed a TSVS complaint. • October 2021 The Del Mar Planning Commission ruled unanimously (5-0) to reject the TSVS claim on the grounds that the neighbors could not provide sufficient evidence a view existed prior to their unauthorized cutting in 2015.
• December 2021 The Del Mar City Council rejected the request for appeal of the Planning Commission ruling on the grounds that they did not meet the criteria to appeal the decision rendering the Planning Commission ruling as final.

TIMELINE OF TREE DISPUTE
Attachment D 130 May 2, 2022 Item 09 153 July 25, 2022 Item 10 “This is setting a dangerous precedent for
me here in Del Mar. That somebody wants
a view, goes onto the neighbor’s yard,
trims it, and comes and claims it and then
brings it before us. I don’t want to see Del
Mar become that way.
-Ted Bakker, Chair, Del Mar Planning Commission

STATEMENT FROM PLANNING

COMMISSION MEETING
Attachment D 131 May 2, 2022 Item 09 154 July 25, 2022 Item 10 1 Adriana Jaramishian
From: Brooke Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2021 1:26 PM
To: Jennifer Gavin; Planning Mail Box
Cc: Michael Urkov; Christopher Garcia
Subject: Item 5 / APN: 300-252-14-00, December 15th, 2021 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Ms. Gavin / City of Del Mar Planning Department,
I am the homeowner of 641 Hoska, which falls within 300 feet of the 624 8th street project. I would like to re-submit my objection to said project in anticipation of the December 15, 2021 hearing.

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

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

The project is specifically in violation of at least three items under Chapter 23.08. The construction violates Code 23.08.072 letter E : "The design will cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value. " It also violates letter J : "The proposed development locates structures so as to unreasonably, adversely impact upon outdoor areas on adjacent properties." Lastly, it violates Code 23.08.077 letter H: "The proposed development unreasonably encroaches upon primary scenic views of neighboring property." Attachment D 132 May 2, 2022 Item 09 155 July 25, 2022 Item 10 2 Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you. ~Brooke Garcia Attachment D 133 May 2, 2022 Item 09 156 July 25, 2022 Item 10 1 Adriana Jaramishian
From: Alex Kwoka <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 6:54 AM
To: Planning Mail Box; [email protected]; Bob Semmer Subject: APN 300-252-14-00 Application by Matt and Chelsea Ziskin CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>> Dear Ms. Gavin;and Design Review Board and Del Mar City Council - We >> received the Notice of Application for Development Permits, and understand that there will be a Public Hearing on 12/15 at 6:00PM VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY.
>> MY HUSBAND ROBERT SEMMER AND I live at 14080 Condesa Drive; we have lived at this address for more than 40 years. We support the proposed Application by Matt and Chelsea Ziskin. >> I am writing this email to support the Application because I am concerned that I will not be able to speak on December 15th and appear in person during the Teleconference hearing. >> If I were able to appear in person at the hearing or participate during the hearing, I declare hereby that I would say the following:
>> 1. I am familiar with both the Ziskin property and their adjacent neighbor’s property (the neighbors who I understand oppose the Application) - not simply because my husband and I live nearby but also because we visited the neighbor’s property when it was owned by John Carney years ago; and because for the past 20 years I walked our dogs up and down Condesa in front of both properties. My husband and I live across the street from both properties. >> 2. I know the Ziskins; I have been in their home, and they have been in ours during the past four years. Matt and Chelsea Ziskins are wonderful neighbors and parents; their 4 young boys are delightful, and our grandson Ethan, age 8, enjoys playing with them. The Ziskins have spent thought and time developing a plan to build on their property, considering how to renovate, remodel/reconstruct, what to do with their small home to enable them to continue to reside at 624 8th Street because their 4 boys know this to be their home and neighborhood. I think they did a great job creating creating space for their 4 boys and themselves on the property lot, respecting the character of the neighborhood. Their recitation of facts concerning the existence and trimming of hedges and shrubbery and trees I believe to be accurate and should be believed and accepted. Conversely, I view with skepticism claims by opposing neighbors based on purported ocean views and what they contend the Ziskins did. >> 3.Finally, I support the proposed Application because I believe the proposed new construction and site improvements are reasonable, and appropriate. Further, the analysis and decision of the Planning Department is professional and unbiased, and in my opinion should be accepted and approved. >> 4. Allowing the Ziskin’s neighbors to continue to argue against the proposed project and to ask the Council to overrule the decision of the Planning Department under the circumstances seems to reduce the Planning Department’s role to simply to a repository of documents, and to create a precedent which promotes lingering disputes, and rewards those who can afford to “do battle” indefinitely, while making it difficult for growing families who simply want to renovate, and continue to remain residents of Del Mar.
>> 5. I support the Application No.300-252-14-00.
>> Alex Kwoka
>> Sent from my iPad
Attachment D 134 May 2, 2022 Item 09 157 July 25, 2022 Item 10 1 Jennifer Gavin
From: Linda Pinney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 9:39 AM
To: Jennifer Gavin
Cc: Chelsea Ziskin
Subject: APN 300-252-14-00
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

Thank you,
Cathy Asciutto & Linda Pinney
425 8th Street
Attachment D 135 May 2, 2022 Item 09 158 July 25, 2022 Item 10 1 Jennifer Gavin
From: Whitney Stevens <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 9:07 AM
To: Jennifer Gavin
Subject: Ziskin Project - APN 300-252-14-00
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

Kind Regards,
Whitney Stevens
Attachment D 136 May 2, 2022 Item 09 159 July 25, 2022 Item 10 1050 Camino Del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014-2698.

Telephone: (858) 755-9313. www.delmar.ca.us
TO: Design Review Board
FROM: Jennifer Gavin, Associate Planner
DATE: February 23, 2022
RE: DRB21-018/ LC21-008/ CDP21-012 (624 8th Street, Ziskin) At a noticed public hearing on December 15, 2021, the Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed a request to allow construction of a new residential unit with associated grading, landscape, and site improvements on the subject property, located in the R1-10 Zone. The staff report from that hearing, including detailed background, project information and correspondence, is included as Exhibit A.

At the December meeting, the DRB reviewed the project, received Applicant and public testimony, considered submitted correspondence and other materials, and provided feedback and direction before continuing the item to a future hearing. Following are the comments/requests made by the DRB at the previous meeting, followed by brief descriptions of the project revisions submitted in response:
 The Board requested that the applicant reconsider the structural siting of the structure to be more consistent with the neighborhood and to decrease the impact of the structure on the neighbor to the east.
o The applicant has reduced the height of the front portion of the entryway by 5’ so that the second story element of the entry is now 4’ further to the north than the prior design. o The applicant proposes to break up the materials of the east wall with horizontal siding on the top portion, stucco on the bottom potion of the wall, and to plant a line of Eugenia trees adjacent to the east wall.
o The second-story deck has been revised to include a planter, which would provide opportunity for vegetative privacy screening of and from the deck area and would push the deck back approximately 3.5 feet.
 The Board requested that the applicant reduce the size of the deck in order to reduce potential privacy impacts to the neighbor to the west
o The deck has been reduced by 111 square feet from 679 square feet in size to 568 square feet due to the above-mentioned planters added to the south side of the deck o A line of Eugenia trees are proposed along the west property line. 1 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 137 May 2, 2022 Item 09 160 July 25, 2022 Item 10

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

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

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

STAFF ANALYSIS OF DRO ISSUES FROM DECEMBER HEARING:

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

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

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

The Board also discussed potential privacy impacts the second-story deck could have on the neighbor to the west. In response to those concerns, the applicant is now proposing to reduce the 2 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 138 May 2, 2022 Item 09 161 July 25, 2022 Item 10

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

RECOMMENDATION:

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

EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A- December 15, 2021 Staff Report and Exhibits
Exhibit B- Applicant’s Summary of Design Revisions
Exhibit C- Correspondence
Exhibit D- Conditions of Approval
3 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 139 May 2, 2022 Item 09 162 July 25, 2022 Item 10 City of Del Mar
Staff Report

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

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

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

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

The Planning Commission unanimously determined that, due to a lack of photographic evidence documenting the contested view, the Commission was unable to establish a right of the Applicant (635 Hoska Drive) to seek restoration per DMMC Section 23.51.030. The Planning Commission’s decision on the TVS application has since been appealed by the TVS Applicant (635 Hoska Drive) to the City Council and an Initial Consideration of the appeal is scheduled for the December 13, 2021 City Council hearing, which will occur after the distribution of this report. 1 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 4 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 140 May 2, 2022 Item 09 163 July 25, 2022 Item 10

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

Page 2 of 12 ends

BACKGROUND:

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

ANALYSIS:

Project Description:

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

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

Summary of the applicant’s proposal:

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

Front yard setback 20 ft. 20 ft.

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

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

FAR 25% 25%
Max. lot coverage 40%. 28%
2 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 5 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 141 May 2, 2022 Item 09 164 July 25, 2022 Item 10

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

Page 3 of 12 ends

Height limitation 26 ft. 24 ft. 2 in.

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

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

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

Landscape/Hardscape:

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

Page 4 of 12 ends

Materials:

Story Poles:

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

Page 5 of 12 ends

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

Potential Issue Area #1: Neighborhood Compatibility- Two-Story Structure in One-Story Neighborhood:
5 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 8 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 144 May 2, 2022 Item 09 167 July 25, 2022 Item 10

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

Page 6 of 12 ends

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

Page 7 of 12 ends

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

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

5.5’ taller than the residences in the immediate neighborhood.

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

Page 8 of 12 ends

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

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

A separate Trees, Scenic Views, and Sunlight Application (TVS21-001) was considered and 8 December 15, 2021 Item 05 EXHIBIT A 11 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 147 May 2, 2022 Item 09 170 July 25, 2022 Item 10