Del Mar City Council
July 25, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXHIBIT B 80 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 216 May 2, 2022 Item 09 239 July 25, 2022 Item 10

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

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

EXHIBIT B 81 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 217 May 2, 2022 Item 09 240 July 25, 2022 Item 10 1 Jennifer Gavin
From: Kelly Welch <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 7:57 PM
To: Jennifer Gavin
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Ziskin Application
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To the Del Mar Review Board:

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Kelly Welch
EXHIBIT C 82 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 218 May 2, 2022 Item 09 241 July 25, 2022 Item 10

TELEPHONE
760.943.0100

FACSIMILE
760.943.0942

THE LAW OFFICE OF
RICHARD R. RICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yayla a report created by Mark Sarojak, an expert in satellite imagery. After reviewing the images, Ms. Yayla noted there was a consistency between the 2012 and 2015 images (as EXHIBIT C 83 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 219 May 2, 2022 Item 09 242 July 25, 2022 Item 10 Ashley Jones
Leslie Devaney
February 10, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXHIBIT C 84 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 220 May 2, 2022 Item 09 243 July 25, 2022 Item 10 Ashley Jones
Leslie Devaney
February 10, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXHIBIT C 85 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 221 May 2, 2022 Item 09 244 July 25, 2022 Item 10 Ashley Jones
Leslie Devaney
February 10, 2022

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

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

1. Photoshop (not accurate);

2. It is the most complementary angle;

3. It does not show lot lines;

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

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

Relying on a misleading image as a depiction of fact, Ms. Thomas observed, “The scale of it - It is tucked in it is … umm even though there’s some grading involved … it’s still below street grade. So, it’s going to read smaller scale by virtue that any home that’s below grade it’s just gonna to get more diminished because of that.”
Again, relying on a misleading Photoshopped image, she continued, “If you look at the contrary - to the neighbor to the east, they are risen and you can look at the view I’m looking at it, you can see the difference between a home down below grade and the one on the east above grade. And if you put them side-by-side they’d look different but even when one is up higher EXHIBIT C 86 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 222 May 2, 2022 Item 09 245 July 25, 2022 Item 10 Ashley Jones
Leslie Devaney
February 10, 2022

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

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

Wilson’s yard.

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

The beauty of this neighborhood is that you have that our homes further back and forward and that allows that each home the privacy of views that you’re trying to achieve especially you’re going down the hill.”
Again, this statement is an expression of Ms. Thomas’s opinion, and fails to recognize that the front-yard setback is not compliant with the DRO. The setback here is 6.5-feet closer to the front property line than the surrounding homes. Staff’s report “Design Guideline C.1 B (should be C.1 D) recommends that in cases where setbacks along a street are varied in the neighborhood, new homes should match those of adjacent homes.” Ms. Thomas’s responsibility EXHIBIT C 87 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 223 May 2, 2022 Item 09 246 July 25, 2022 Item 10 Ashley Jones
Leslie Devaney
February 10, 2022

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

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

Ms. Thomas: “Glenn can I ask a question in terms of I kind of agree with the wall with a view to the east of the scale of the yard is larger so it’s a small percentage of it but because the landscaping has been such an issue for this project I don’t know how we are to look at it if there was a hedge that has basically no view because if the hedge the hedge went all the way along property line then that wall can we affect that wall living there by adding Landscaping there? And then Brian if you if you go back to the picture that you brought up on Page 55 that shows it below the street I kind of want clarification from those who think it’s looming to explain so that I can better understand I mean it’s sitting below the street and reads is not a two-story house so I’m having a hard time understanding concern so I’d love a little bit of clarification from my point of you thank you”
Glenn Warren, DRB Member: “I guess I it’s just my perception when I look at it. And I understand what you’re saying it’s not the stories coming directly up on the street, but because of where it situated I get a sort of a pause in feeling which I don’t get it with some of the other two-story houses that I see on the block with their situated for the back. That’s just a feeling our perception that I have I think it’s location, the siting.” Not satisfied with Mr. Warren’s response, Ms. Thomas then redirects the conversation: “I don’t know maybe it’s a question for you or for Matt. Landscaping because if you see your EXHIBIT C 88 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 224 May 2, 2022 Item 09 247 July 25, 2022 Item 10 Ashley Jones
Leslie Devaney
February 10, 2022

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

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

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

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

EXHIBIT C 89 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 225 May 2, 2022 Item 09 248 July 25, 2022 Item 10 Ashley Jones
Leslie Devaney
February 10, 2022

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

Very truly yours,
/s/ Richard R. Rice
Richard R. Rice
cc: Clients
EXHIBIT C 90 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 226 May 2, 2022 Item 09 249 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 February 2, 2022 and so identified by the staff of the Del Mar Planning and Community Development Department. Revisions to these plans and/or any proposals for modification shall require review and prior authorization from the appropriate entities of the City of Del Mar.

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

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

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

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

G-8 [Height and Setback Certifications Prior to Framing Sign Off] Prior to sign-off on the framing inspection for the project, the applicant shall provide a statement from a Licensed Surveyor certifying that the building height and setbacks are in conformance with the approved plans for the project. The survey required herein shall be prepared using City of Del EXHIBIT D 91 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 227 May 2, 2022 Item 09 250 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 D 92 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 228 May 2, 2022 Item 09 251 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 February 23, 2025 unless a Building Permit has been issued (if required by the DMMC) and substantial construction has been accomplished in reliance upon the permit. Pursuant to the DMMC, substantial construction is defined as: completion of a minimum of 10% of the total amount of construction authorized by the permit, based on the monetary value of construction costs including grading, site preparation and construction but specifically excluding all costs associated with the acquisition of interest in the project site and all costs associated with the preparation and processing of permits or plans.

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

G-15 [Statement of Accuracy/Agreement Regarding Third-Party Lawsuits] Prior to the issuance of building permits or project commencement, whichever comes first, the applicant shall submit a statement to the Planning Department regarding the accuracy of submitted plans/materials and agreeing to hold the City of Del Mar harmless from third-party lawsuits filed challenging the City’s approval of this permit. The agreement shall also include a commitment to defend the City of Del Mar from any third-party lawsuits filed challenging the City’s approval of this EXHIBIT D 93 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 229 May 2, 2022 Item 09 252 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 D 94 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 230 May 2, 2022 Item 09 253 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 D 95 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 231 May 2, 2022 Item 09 254 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 D 96 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 232 May 2, 2022 Item 09 255 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 D 97 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 233 May 2, 2022 Item 09 256 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 D 98 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 234 May 2, 2022 Item 09 257 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 Standard SWMP for City review and approval that addresses the following:

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

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

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

E-11 [Soil Stabilization]
EXHIBIT D 99 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 235 May 2, 2022 Item 09 258 July 25, 2022 Item 10 The applicant shall utilize sediment controls only as a supplement to erosion prevention for keeping sediment on-site during construction – NEVER as a single or primary method.

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

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

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

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

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

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

E-17 [Proposed Retaining Wall]
EXHIBIT D 100 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 236 May 2, 2022 Item 09 259 July 25, 2022 Item 10 The proposed retaining walls shall be designed and constructed completely within the property. No portion of the wall or footing shall extend across the property line. The footing limits of retaining walls shall be shown on the plans together with profiles of the proposed retaining walls located along property lines and right-of-ways.

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

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

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

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

E-21 [Site conditions]
EXHIBIT D 101 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 237 May 2, 2022 Item 09 260 July 25, 2022 Item 10 E-21A The applicant shall restrict hours of work for the use of heavy equipment during grading and improvements between the hours of 7:30AM to 5:00PM, this includes the warmup of equipment. Saturday, Sunday and City holiday work is prohibited; E-21B Any under grounding of SDG&E facilities serving the site or other utilities shall be done at the applicant’s expense; and
E-21C All construction activities undertaken shall comply with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. In cases of conflict between the City’s Municipal Code, these standard conditions of approval, the governing priority shall be, to the extent legally permitted, as follows: 1) City’s Municipal Code regulations; 2) City’s General Plan; 3) Standard Conditions.

FIRE CONDITIONS:

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

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

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

F-9 [Construction Materials]
EXHIBIT D 102 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 238 May 2, 2022 Item 09 261 July 25, 2022 Item 10 Prior to delivery of combustible building construction materials to the project site all of the following conditions shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Fire Department:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXHIBIT D 103 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 239 May 2, 2022 Item 09 262 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 Building Standards Commission and the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

EXHIBIT D 104 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 240 May 2, 2022 Item 09 263 July 25, 2022 Item 10 The LDP shall be subject to the review and written approval of the Director of Planning and Community Development (Director). The Director shall, as deemed necessary, work in consultation with the City's Landscape Architect, with the costs for such consultation to be borne by the applicant or his/her designee. If the submitted LDP is found not to be in compliance with the standards referenced herein, it shall be revised accordingly and resubmitted for compliance review.

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

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

SPECIAL CONDITIONS:

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

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

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

EXHIBIT D 105 February 23, 2022 Item 1 Attachment E 241 May 2, 2022 Item 09 264 July 25, 2022 Item 10 1 of 8
February 18, 2021
Regarding DRB21-018
Dear Planning Department & Members of the DRB,
My husband Nigel Hook and I have lived at 635 Hoska Drive since 1999. People want to live in Del Mar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The planned building height is 24’ 2”.

December Staff’s report: “The proposed residence would be sited upon a raised building pad approximately 1- 2’ 8” feet above existing grade” which calculates to the new top of the building will be 26’ above the current grade?
The existing home’s height is probably around 11’ (as compared to 612 8th Street) This means that 15’ of a solid building and wall is being proposed on top of what is already on the lot? Attachment F 242 May 2, 2022 Item 09 265 July 25, 2022 Item 10 2 of 8
It was not correct for Staff to include the proposed setback and the proposed building height as part of the existing neighborhood’s averages.

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

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

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

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

Attachment F 243 May 2, 2022 Item 09 266 July 25, 2022 Item 10 3 of 8
DMMC 23.08.072 J. The proposed development locates structures so as to unreasonably, adversely impact upon outdoor areas on adjacent properties;
DMMC 23.08.072 D The design will create an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of neighboring properties.

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

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

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

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

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

Even with foliage and hedges, we are ocean aware.

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

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

Attachment F 244 May 2, 2022 Item 09 267 July 25, 2022 Item 10 4 of 8
This picture is worth 1,000 words and it is not an exaggeration – the Story Poles are seen and circled in Red.

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

Attachment F 245 May 2, 2022 Item 09 268 July 25, 2022 Item 10 5 of 8
DMMC Section 23.08.077 C – Neighborhood scale – Out of scale with the neighboring homes Related Design Guidelines:
• Design Guideline C.1 B. – Neighborhood Compatibility
• Design Guideline D.1 – Building Form and Massing
• Design Guideline D.4 C.- Architectural Features and Articulation Design Guidelines *** Lot Coverage ***
The current 1-story home has a lot coverage of 28.78%.

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

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

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

Attachment F 246 May 2, 2022 Item 09 269 July 25, 2022 Item 10 6 of 8
The green circle is 300’ from 624 8th Street (pink square). San Diego is the dark square outlined in red.

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

Attachment F 247 May 2, 2022 Item 09 270 July 25, 2022 Item 10 7 of
8 DMMC 23.08.077 C. Out of ScaleDMMC 23.08.077 D. The design is not harmoniousDriving down 8th St., back up 9th St., turning on Hoska Dr., and then around the 8th St. extension…There are 50 homes in this picture (the 19 within 300 feet plus 31 more homes). Of these 50:
37 are 1- story (74%) 13 are 2-story (26%)
Clearly this is a one-story neighborhood. In front of every 2-story is a 1-story transition structure softening the effect of a 2-story. Finally, with the exception of our garage, all of the 2-story homes have the 2nd story positioned at least 40’back from the road.

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

Attachment F
248 May 2, 2022 Item 09
271 July 25, 2022 Item 10
8 of 8

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

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

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

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

Thank you,
Nigel Hook and Janet Wilson
635 Hoska Drive
Nigel: (619) 977-3000
Janet: (619) 733-1428
Attachment F 249 May 2, 2022 Item 09 272 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) It was noted in the December 15, 2021 Staff report that all houses on the south side of 8th Street were in the City of San Diego. However, there are three houses on the south side of 8th Street, within the 300’ radius which are actually located in the City of Del Mar and were inadvertently left out of the analysis. Therefore, staff is providing an updated analysis, edits noted in red:

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

27.8’ 25.9’ 18.6’ 19.9’
Attachment F 250 May 2, 2022 Item 09 273 July 25, 2022 Item 10

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

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

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

Attachment F 251 May 2, 2022 Item 09 274 July 25, 2022 Item 10 1 Jennifer Gavin
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 4:20 PM
To: Jennifer Gavin
Cc: Matt Bator; Nigel Hook; Richard Rice
Subject: DRB021-018 - Neighborhood averages statistics should be adjusted to match the neighborhood noticing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will you be able to confirm mailings to 1 vs. 2 stories before tonight's meeting?
Address One-orTwo-Story Front Yard Setback Setback to 2nd Story Building Height 417 8th Street
Not known,
appears one-story
from street
Not known Not known
1 425 8th Street 2 20 41 23
2 428 8th Street 1 29 16
3 431 8th Street 2 20 51 24
4 434 8th Street 1 32 15
5 442 8th Street 2 45 63 22
6 450 8th Street 1 Not Known Not Known
7 612 8th Street 1 27 11
Attachment F 252 May 2, 2022 Item 09 275 July 25, 2022 Item 10 2 8
624 8th Street
(CURRENT) 1 25 11
9 635 Hoska Dr
Garage/Guest House 2 13 13 25
10 635 Hoska Dr
Main House 1 100 26 Worst Case
11 420 8th Street 1 30 15 Worst Case
12 605 Hoska Dr. 1 20 15 Worst Case
13 610 Hoska Dr. 1 31 15 Worst Case
14 611 Hoska Dr. 1 23 15 Worst Case
15 623 Hoska Dr. 1 34 15 Worst Case
16 624 Hoska Dr 1 24 15 Worst Case
17 636 Hoska Dr. 1 44 15 Worst Case
18 641 Hoska Dr. 1 32 15 Worst Case
19 642 Hoska Dr. 1 32 15 Worst Case
20 660 Hoska Dr. 1 82 15 Worst Case
21 667A Hoska Dr. 1 22 15 Worst Case
22 667 Hoska Dr. 1 33 15 Worst Case
23 668 Hoska Dr. 1 30 15 Worst Case
24 421 9th Street 1 40 15 Worst Case
25 445 9th Street 2 22 22 26 Worst Case
26 901 Highland Ave 2 26 26 26 Worst Case
27 distance? 682 Hoska Dr. 1 20 15 Worst Case
28 distance? 707 Hoska Dr. 2 27 38 15 Worst Case
Front Yard Setback Setback to 2nd Story Building Height Two-Stories = 7 25% 883 254 465
One-Stories = 21 75% 32.7037037 36.28571429 17.22222222 AVERAGE Average 32.7 Average 36.3 Average 17.2
The average building height will be lower as I used the worst case for all.

Attachment F 253 May 2, 2022 Item 09 276 July 25, 2022 Item 10 February 23, 2022, 2021
Dear Members of the Del Mar Planning Commission:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Del Mar, CA 92014
Attachment F 254 May 2, 2022 Item 09 277 July 25, 2022 Item 10 1 Madeline Shute
From: Brooke Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 10:12 AM
To: Jennifer Gavin
Cc: Planning Mail Box
Subject: Item 1 APN: 300-252-14-00
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Ms. Gavin / City of Del Mar Planning Department,
I am the homeowner of 641 Hoska, which falls within 300 feet of the 624 8th street project. I would like to re-submit my objection to said project in anticipation of the February 23, 2022 hearing.

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

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

The project is specifically in violation of at least three items under Chapter 23.08. The construction violates Code 23.08.072 letter E : "The design will cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value. " It also violates letter J : "The proposed development locates structures so as to unreasonably, adversely impact upon outdoor areas on adjacent properties." Lastly, it violates Code 23.08.077 letter H: "The proposed development unreasonably encroaches upon primary scenic views of neighboring property." Attachment F 255 May 2, 2022 Item 09 278 July 25, 2022 Item 10 2 Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you. ~Brooke Garcia Attachment F 256 May 2, 2022 Item 09 279 July 25, 2022 Item 10 1 Madeline Shute
From: jacqueline larson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 11:27 AM
To: Planning Mail Box
Cc: jacqueline larson
Subject: Re: Nigel & Janet Hook View
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

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

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Larson
--
Best Regards,
Jacqueline Kay Larson
Cell 858-736-4594
Box 201 Del Mar, CA 92014
Attachment F 257 May 2, 2022 Item 09 280 July 25, 2022 Item 10 1 Madeline Shute
From: diana marquardt <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 11:21 AM
To: Jennifer Gavin; Planning Mail Box
Subject: 624 8th st
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

Respectfully,
Diana Marquardt
Attachment F 258 May 2, 2022 Item 09 281 July 25, 2022 Item 10 1 Madeline Shute
From: Camilla Rang <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2022 8:20 PM
To: Planning Mail Box
Subject: Mitigation needed of the 624 8th Street 2-story planned dwelling CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Planning Committee,
I have read and looked through all letters, photos and info about the very difficult case of the planned construction of a 2-story house on 624 8th Street. I think we all, including Janet Wilson herself, should not have so severely cut down the hedge between the two properties in 2015 without conferring with the new property owner. On the other hand, that does not change the fact that the planned two story house on 624 8th street is removing all ocean view for Janet Wilson and also is looming over her yard. It sounds like the two parties would benefit from a mediation.

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

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

Sincerely,
Camilla Rang
159 10th Street, Del Mar, CA 92014
Attachment F 259 May 2, 2022 Item 09 282 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)
Attachment G 260 May 2, 2022 Item 09 283 July 25, 2022 Item 10 1 Jennifer Gavin
From: Kelly Welch <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 12:30 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Ziskin Remodel
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi….We are writing in favor of the Ziskin remodel. It is totally unacceptable and ridiculous that an appeal should be granted when their remodel was voted on and approved in front of the Del Mar Review Board. There is no basis for this appeal. The party that is appealing has one goal in mind……to wear the Ziskin’s down so that they will eventually give up and move away. I watched them do this same thing with the property behind them. Why and how are you allowing this to happen? All the Ziskins are trying to do is build a small home that will help fit their family and improve our street.

Why does the family next door to the Ziskins have so much influence? Sincerely,
Kelly and Pat Welch
431 8th Street
Attachment H 261 May 2, 2022 Item 09 284 July 25, 2022 Item 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attachment I 262 May 2, 2022 Item 09 285 July 25, 2022 Item 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attachment I 263 May 2, 2022 Item 09 286 July 25, 2022 Item 10

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

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

Attachment I 264 May 2, 2022 Item 09 287 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
Attachment J 265 May 2, 2022 Item 09 288 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
Attachment J 266 May 2, 2022 Item 09 289 July 25, 2022 Item 10 290 July 25, 2022 Item 10
624 8th Street; 300' Radius
291 July 25, 2022 Item 10

PROOF OF

PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
State Of California,
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a
resident of the County aforesaid: I am
over the age of eighteen years, and not a
matter. I am an authorized
representative of
Del Mar Times
a newspaper of general circulation,
printed and published weekly in the
County of San Diego, and which
newspaper has been adjudged a
newspaper of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San
Diego, State of California, under the date
of 05/28/2010, Case Number
#37-2010-00051582-CU-PT-NC;
that the notice, of which the annexed is a
printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpareil), has been published in each
regular and entire issue of the said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following
Dates, to-wit:

April 21, 2022
I certify (or declare) under the penalty
of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct.

Dated: April 21, 2022
At: San Diego, California
_________________________
Signature
Cris Gaza
UT Community Press
292 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Mark Maggenti <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 11:11 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: red dot - 624 8th st. APN: 300-252-14-00
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

Thank You,
Mark Maggenti,
234 10th Street
May 2, 2022 Item 09 293 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Linda Pinney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 8:58 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot - 624 8th St - APN 300-252-14-00
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
We sincerely hope that the City will uphold the DRB’s careful and thoughtful decision to approve this young family’s home. They have been through the ringer and have more than earned the opportunity to start building their forever home in our sweet little town…without more contention.

Respectfully submitted,
Linda Pinney & Cathy Asciutto
425 8th Street
May 2, 2022 Item 09 294 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Sarah Krietor
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 12:40 PM
To: Sarah Krietor
Cc: Richard Rice; Nigel Hook
Subject: Regarding DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012
Attachments: DRB021-18_CityCouncilMeeting.pdf; AttachmentA.1 _OtisHacket_MemoToFile_OralReport.pdf; AttachmentA.2_Otis Hackett CV 11-20.pdf; AttachmentA.3_Otis Hackett Clients 11-20-b.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello Sarah,
Please find four attached documents for the upcoming City Council meeting.

Thank you, Janet
May 2, 2022 Item 09 295 July 25, 2022 Item 10
April 28, 2022
Dear City Councilmembers,
As you know, Del Mar is a unique village with a well-established Community Plan (established in 1976/amended in 1985). The Community Plan is the constitution of Del Mar. The Design Review Ordinance (“DRO”) is the implementation of our Community Plan and is supplemented by the Design Guidelines (Nov 2017).

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

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

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

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

1. The extent to which the contested design element adversely impacts upon the purposes for which this [Design Review] Chapter is adopted.

2. Whether the project requires the inclusion of the contested design element in order for the project to be useable by the applicant.

3. Whether the project requires the inclusion of the contested design element in order to produce a project that is similar in quality to development in the neighborhood.

4. The availability of one or more alternatives to the contested design element that will produce a project that is usable by the applicant and similar in quality to development in the neighborhood.

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

Does this project have:
• unique circumstances?
o Yes, this is a substandard lot for Zone R1-10 (in both size and width) at 70% of the minimum size requirement.
o This project chooses to include the “extra” FAR of 246 SF (allowed due to substandard lot size) May 2, 2022 Item 09 296 July 25, 2022 Item 10
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 2
o There is “extra” city land (between the street and property line) giving the appears of a deeper lot.
• site constraints?
o No, this is a flat buildable lot which already supports a single story, 2,019 SF home. • topography?
o Yes, the southeast corner is below street level with possible drainage concerns. • historic considerations?
o None that we are aware of.
• other relevant facts?
o None that we are aware of.

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

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

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

1. There are many alternatives to a second story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nigel and I support the Community Plan and we respect the DRO and DRB processes. Thank you very much for your time,
Janet Wilson | 619.733.1428 | [email protected]
Nigel Hook | 619.977.3000 | [email protected]
635 Hoska Dr., Del Mar, CA 92014
May 2, 2022 Item 09 297 July 25, 2022 Item 10
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 3

23.08.072 Regulatory Conclusions – Generally

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

Mr. Otis E. Hackett, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS, State of California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. AG005393, Real Estate Broker License (CA) No. 00522243 has provided a Memo to File, his CV, and a partial Client List.

Refer to attachments:

1. AttachmentA.1_OtisHacket_MemoToFile_OralReport.pdf

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

3. AttachmentA.3_Otis Hackett Clients 11-20-b.pdf
May 2, 2022 Item 09 298 July 25, 2022 Item 10
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 2, 2022 Item 09 299 July 25, 2022 Item 10
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 5
Currently, very little of the 624 roofline is visible.

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

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

May 2, 2022 Item 09 300 July 25, 2022 Item 10
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 6

23.08.076 Regulatory Conclusions – Topography and Landscaping

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

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

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

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

C.5.a.2.a 0-15% [natural slope] Redistribution of earth over larger areas may be permitted. (Emphasis added.) May 2, 2022 Item 09 301 July 25, 2022 Item 10
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 7

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

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

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

LAND CONSERVATION PERMIT LC21-008:

Pursuant to DMMC Chapter 23.33, proposed grading exceeding 25 cubic yards (cut or fill) outside of the footprint of any structure and/or grading that results in a permanent property elevation change exceeding 18 inches, shall require approve of a Land Conservation Permit (LC). (Emphasis added.)

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

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

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

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

From the December 15, 2021 Staff Report:
“The existing site slopes from an elevation of approximately 247 feet msl at the southeast corner down to 243 feet msl on the northwest portion of the lot (approximately a 4 foot difference). The project proposes raising the building pad from 243.3 to 245.9 except for at the entryway where the grade is proposed to be raised to 251.44 feet (fill of approximately 7.64 feet).” What? This is a graded, buildable lot. The natural topography was compromised many years ago.

Why is over 7.5 feet of fill and a building pad raised over 2.5 feet being proposed? So, what does 7 feet look like?
May 2, 2022 Item 09 302 July 25, 2022 Item 10
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 8
Again, from the December 15, 2021 Staff Report:
“When considering this issue and whether a violation of the Land Conservation Ordinance is present on this project, staff suggests that the Board consider the submitted justification from the Applicant’s Engineer (Exhibit E) that the existing site is significantly lower than the street (approximately 7.7 feet at the highest point of the street) and so the fill grading is primarily related to improving on-site drainage so that water can more naturally flow up to the street without having to use pumps which are unreliable during power outages.” (Emphasis added).

May 2, 2022 Item 09 303 July 25, 2022 Item 10
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 9
Over the last 23 years of living next door, we are not aware of any drainage issues. However, poor drainage can be a problem and should be addressed during any project.

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

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

May 2, 2022 Item 09 304 July 25, 2022 Item 10
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 10

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

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

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

During the hearing before the DRB on December 15, 2021, Matt Bator, Del Mar’s Senior Planner, was asked about using vegetation to “lessen” bulk and mass and its looming effect. He replied:
“So oftentimes applicants will propose that vegetation could mitigate issues caused by structural siting by creating screening of buildings and things like that. My suggestion is typically, ‘Well, that can be used.’ That’s a fine mechanism that’s been used by boards in the past. Oftentimes boards will take the other route. That would be since structures last for a really long time, look at mitigation through design versus vegetation, which could be temporary in nature over time for permanent screening.” (Emphasis added.)
Yellow is the location of 13-foot tall hedging. Orange are the deck planters.

All of this landscaping is directly related to the need to screen the proposed second story! May 2, 2022 Item 09 305 July 25, 2022 Item 10
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 11

23.08.077 Regulatory Conclusions – Relationship to Neighborhood

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

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

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

NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER:

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

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

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

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

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

May 2, 2022 Item 09 306 July 25, 2022 Item 10
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 12
The few two-story homes on 8th Street are fronted by single-story garages or entrance

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

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

May 2, 2022 Item 09 307 July 25, 2022 Item 10
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 13

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

2. Structural siting on the lot
*
Current One-Story Siting Proposed Two-Story Siting (blue) The current siting has the building at an angle which reduces the visual impact from the street. The proposed siting will have a front facing, flat impact.
“The majority of vertical structural massing has been located at the front of the property (21’ 2” from the front property line) which potentially adds to the apparent height of the structure” was stated by Planning in the December 15, 2021 staff report. The no-man’s land between the property line and road does diminish the appearance but it is still out of scale with the neighborhood.

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

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

May 2, 2022 Item 09 308 July 25, 2022 Item 10
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 14

23.08.077 E. The component elements of the design are not in proportion to one another. (Emphasis added.) Visually you can see that the structure is out of balance for the lot. 8th Street (South Elevation)
Backyard (North Elevation)
From my Yard (East Elevation)
West Elevation
May 2, 2022 Item 09 309 July 25, 2022 Item 10
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 15

23.08.078 Regulatory Conclusions – Building Design

23.08.078 E. The proposed development fails to limit the amount of design components which unnecessarily add bulk and mass to the building but which are not calculated as floor area ration (FAR) pursuant to DMMC Title 30, the Zone Code. (Emphasis added.)
Design Guidelines D.3.A.2:

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

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

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

May 2, 2022 Item 09 310 July 25, 2022 Item 10
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 16
The 300 square foot outdoor room and 400 square foot garage are covered by a rooftop patio which is flanked by large planters. And there are covered entrances, roof overhangs and a chimney. In addition, there are two outdoor staircases and one internal staircase… all of these elements are to support a 1,600 square foot house! *** Non-FAR ***
The current one-story home barely has any non-FAR (just a covered entrance?).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 2, 2022 Item 09 311 July 25, 2022 Item 10
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 17
While the current neighbors may not outright object, all future residents would be subjected to the adverse impacts of this design. The majority of Del Mar residents would not favor this deck. Decisions made now affect the future enjoyment of the neighborhood.

Del Mar Design Guidelines
https://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/3448/Design-Guidelines-FAQ-PDF?bidId= Q. Is it true that outdoor spaces such as decks and balconies will be restricted? A. There is no blanket restriction that says all decks must be a certain size. The Guidelines, which will be applied on a case‐by-case basis, attempt to uphold important design principles reflected in the Community Plan and referenced in the DRO. Most covered outdoor structures are treated as exempt from Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations in the Zoning Code. The Guidelines recognize that covered porches, loggias, decks, and balconies can enhance a home’s design, appearance, and function. When these elements are not in proportion to overall building form and neighboring properties, they can contribute to excessive bulk, mass, and scale. The recommendations for decks, porches, and trellises are intended to reduce the appearance of excessive massing and scale, and ensure that the proportionality of building size to lot size intended by the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) construction standard (in the zoning code) is maintained. (Emphasis added.)

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

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

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

This project would be a perfect example of disorderly development

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

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

May 2, 2022 Item 09 312 July 25, 2022 Item 10
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 18

23.08.077 Regulatory Conclusions – Relationship to Neighborhood

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

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

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

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

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

May 2, 2022 Item 09 313 July 25, 2022 Item 10
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 19
Details - Section B – Map of Neighborhood
The traffic light at Camino Del Mar and 9th St. is a major intersection. Turning left goes to Highland Ave. and Hoska Dr. That intersection might be considered a neighborhood boundary because Hoska Dr. up to the 8th St.

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

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

May 2, 2022 Item 09 314 July 25, 2022 Item 10
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 20
Details - Section C – Chart of 29 Neighborhood Homes
Number Street Stories Setback 2nd Story Setback Height
1 417 8th Street 1 20 15
2 425 8th Street 2 20 41.50 23
3 428 8th Street 1 29 15.5
4 431 8th Street 2 20 51.03 24
5 434 8th Street 1 32 15
6 442 8th Street 2 45 63.50 22
7 450 8th Street 1 20 15
8 612 8th Street 1 27 10.66
9 624 Current 8th Street 1 26 12
11 635 Hoska Dr 1 97 24
11 635 Garage Hoska Dr 2 28 28 24.66
12 445 9th 2 20 20 26
13 901 Highland 2 30 20 26
14 601 Hoska 1 30 15
15 605 Hoska 1 27 15
16 610 Hoska 1 37 15
17 611 Hoska 1 22 15
18 623 Hoska 1 36 15
19 624 Hoska 1 21 15
20 636 Hoska 1 40 15
21 641 Hoska 1 27 15
22 642 Hoska 1 34 15
23 660 Hoska 1 36 15
na 667A Hoska - - - - - - - -
na 667 Hoska - - - - - - - -
24 402 8th (to Nob) 1 66 15
25 405 8th (to Nob) 2 20 60 26
26 406 8th (to Nob) 1 30 15
27 410 8th (to Nob) 1 29 15
28 411 8th (to Nob) 2 20 45 26
29 420 8th (to Nob) 1 33 15
21 1-story
8 2-story 922.00 329.03 514.82
Counted 29 29 8 29
Percentages 73.9% 1-story

26.1% 2-story 31.79 41.13 17.75
624 Proposed 8th Street 2 21.2 22 24
Difference 73.9% 1-story -10.59 -19.13 6.25
Setback 2nd Story Setback Height
(note: if a setback or height was unknown, min/max used for the worst case scenario) • 74% are one-story homes
• Setback – the proposed house is 10' 6” closer than the average setback (includes 18 worst case) • 2nd Story Setback - proposed 2nd story 19' closer than the average • Height - proposed height is 6' taller than the average (includes 18 worst case) May 2, 2022 Item 09 315 July 25, 2022 Item 10
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 Page: 21
Details - Section D – Colorful Map of Neighborhood Homes Green indicates single-story. Red indicates two-story.

Where a “neighborhood” begins and ends is subjective. Boundaries are often defined by underlying conditions:
• an immediate geographical area (within 300 feet)
• city limits (San Diego)
• a style of architecture
• a geographic or topographic features (a cliff, a park) • major roads are logical boundaries (a traffic light at 9th St.) • a city block
• ethnicity
• land use change from residential to commercial or high density • traffic patterns – entrance roads used by residents and visitors * May 2, 2022 Item 09 316 July 25, 2022 Item 10
May 2, 2022 Item 09 317 July 25, 2022 Item 10
May 2, 2022 Item 09 318 July 25, 2022 Item 10
May 2, 2022 Item 09 319 July 25, 2022 Item 10
May 2, 2022 Item 09 320 July 25, 2022 Item 10
May 2, 2022 Item 09 321 July 25, 2022 Item 10
May 2, 2022 Item 09 322 July 25, 2022 Item 10
May 2, 2022 Item 09 323 July 25, 2022 Item 10
May 2, 2022 Item 09 324 July 25, 2022 Item 10
May 2, 2022 Item 09 325 July 25, 2022 Item 10
May 2, 2022 Item 09 326 July 25, 2022 Item 10
May 2, 2022 Item 09 327 July 25, 2022 Item 10
May 2, 2022 Item 09 328 July 25, 2022 Item 10
May 2, 2022 Item 09 329 July 25, 2022 Item 10
May 2, 2022 Item 09 330 July 25, 2022 Item 10
May 2, 2022 Item 09 331 July 25, 2022 Item 10
May 2, 2022 Item 09 332 July 25, 2022 Item 10
May 2, 2022 Item 09 333 July 25, 2022 Item 10
11/2020
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS

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

Specific Property Types (existing and proposed):

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

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

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

Whole takes; partial takes; construction easements; acquisition appraisals; condemnation consultation; and expert witness testimony
Diminution In Value Appraisals:

Toxic contamination; construction defects; encroachments; title issues; view, light and air issues; boundary line disputes; omitted easements on policies of title insurance May 2, 2022 Item 09 334 July 25, 2022 Item 10
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS

11/2020
Woodland Hills Appraisal Group, 1994-Present. Member of business entity which offers real property and economic data to a cooperative consisting of real estate appraisers and consultants. The group provides office space, computers, on-line data services, public records, access to various multiple listing services, subscription services, library, and historical sale records dating to 1984 for Los Angeles County, Orange County, and Ventura County.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Successful completion of the following CCIM Institute courses:
• CI 101 – Financial Analysis for Commercial Investment Real Estate • CI 102 – Market Analysis for Commercial Investment Real Estate • CI 103 – User Decision Analysis for Commercial Investment Real Estate • CI 104 – Investment Analysis Commercial Investment Real Estate • Core Concepts Review course
• Comprehensive Examination
Successful completion of the following Appraisal Institute and former American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers' courses and/or examinations:
• Standards of Professional Practice, Part C
May 2, 2022 Item 09 335 July 25, 2022 Item 10
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS

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

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

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

May 2, 2022 Item 09 336 July 25, 2022 Item 10
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS

11/2020
4 • American Arbitration Association
• JAMS
• Los Angeles County Superior Court
• Los Angeles County Municipal Court
• Orange County Superior Court
• Santa Monica Rent Control Board
• Ventura County Superior Court
• U.S. District Court, Central District of California

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

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

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

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

Appraisal Institute: Regional Ethics and Counseling Panel, 1991 to 2000; Board of Directors, Southern California Chapter, 1991; Experience Review Committee, 1991 to 1995; Representation of Region VII Committee, 1994 to 1995.

Counselors of Real Estate: National Committees - High Profile Subcommittee, 2001; Public Relations May 2, 2022 Item 09 337 July 25, 2022 Item 10
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS

11/2020
5 Committee, 2000; Membership Development Committee, 2001 to 2010 (Vice-Chairman 2008; Chairman 2009); Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee, 2003 to 2012. Membership Officer, Southern California Chapter, 2003-2004; Treasurer, San Diego Chapter, 2011 to 2014; Board of Directors, 2009 to 2016; 2011 Liaison Vice Chair.

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

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

May 2, 2022 Item 09 338 July 25, 2022 Item 10
11/20
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS
CLIENTS (Partial List)
Public/Quasi-Public
City of Alhambra Redevelopment Agency
City of Arcadia Redevelopment Agency
City of Baldwin Park Redevelopment Agency
Baldwin Park Unified School District
City of Burbank
City of Burbank Redevelopment Agency
City of Burbank Department of Water & Power
City of Cerritos
Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Los Angeles
City of El Monte Redevelopment Agency
Federal Aviation Administration
City of Fontana Redevelopment Agency
Glendale Unified School District
City of Inglewood Redevelopment Agency
Internal Revenue Service, Western Region
City of Lakewood
Los Angeles County Flood Control District
Los Angeles County Sanitation District
City of Norwalk
City of Paramount
City of Pasadena Development Department
Regents of the University of California
Resolution Trust Corporation
City of Santa Monica Department of Community & Economic Development Santa Monica Municipal Airport
City of Santa Monica Office of the City Attorney
City of Santa Monica Rent Control Board
City of Simi Valley
Temple City Redevelopment Agency
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. General Services Administration, Region 9
U.S. Postal Service
City of West Covina
West Covina Community Development Commission
Utility Companies
Southern California Edison
Suburban Water System
West Basin Municipal Water District
Financial Institutions
American Savings and Loan Association
Bank of America
May 2, 2022 Item 09 339 July 25, 2022 Item 10
CLIENTS (Partial List)
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS

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

Union Bank
Wells Fargo Bank
Insurance Companies
Allstate Insurance Co.

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

VASA North Atlantic Insurance Co.

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

Burbank Medical Clinic
Cadway, Inc.

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

Cloverleaf Group
Coldwell Banker
May 2, 2022 Item 09 340 July 25, 2022 Item 10
CLIENTS (Partial List)
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS

11/20
Dinan Real Estate Advisors, Inc.

Henry George Greene, A.I.A.

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

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

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

Otting Enterprises, Inc.

Park/Abrams Development Co.

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

Schickler Meringoff Properties, Inc.

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

Commonwealth Land Title Co.

Fidelity National Title Co.

Fidelity National Law Group
First American Title Insurance Co.

Lawyer's Land Title Co.

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

Old Republic Title Co.

Security Union Title Insurance Co.

May 2, 2022 Item 09 341 July 25, 2022 Item 10
CLIENTS (Partial List)
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS

11/20
Stewart Title Guaranty Co.

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

Transnation Title Insurance Co.

Attorneys
Alborg, Veiluva & Martin, Walnut Creek
Alperstein, Simon, Farkas, Gillin & Scott, LLP, Encino
Anderson, McPharlin & Connors, LLP, Los Angeles
Aran & Aran, Los Angeles
Archer Norris, Newport Beach
Astor & Phillips, Los Angeles
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Rudd & Romo, Cerritos
Baker, Silberberg & Keener, Santa Monica
Beckman, Davis, Smith & Ruddy, Los Angeles
Best, Best & Krieger, Palm Springs
Billet & Kaplan, Los Angeles
David G. Boss, Esq.; The Boss Law Firm, San Diego
Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Los Angeles
Browne & Woods, Beverly Hills
Carl G. Buchberg, Los Angeles
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, Los Angeles
George S. Burns, Esq., Irvine
Bryon & Edwards, APC, San Diego
Sheldon R. Caplow, Esq., Encino
Paul W. Chandler, Los Angeles
Deborah Chodos, Brentwood
Michael A. Chodos, Palos Verdes Estates
Chapin, Shea, McNitt & Carter, Los Angeles
Chuck & Tsoong, Glendale
Cunningham, Treadwell & Bartlestone, Woodland Hills
Dapeer, Rosenblit & Litvak, Los Angeles
Demler, Armstrong & Rowland, LLP, Long Beach
DiMascio & Berardo, Los Angeles
Driscoll & Driscoll, Pasadena
Erickson Arbuthnot, Los Angeles
Ernster Law Office, Pasadena
Ferguson, Regnier & Paterson, Oxnard
Fox & Sohagi, Los Angeles
Fredman/Lieberman, LLP, Los Angeles
Gaglione & Dolan, Los Angeles
Galfin, Passon & Greely, LLP, Irvine
Garrett & Tully, Pasadena and Thousand Oaks
Gendel, Raskoff, Shapiro & Quitner, Los Angeles
Gibbs, Giden, Locher, Turner, Senet & Wittbrodt LLP, Los Angeles May 2, 2022 Item 09 342 July 25, 2022 Item 10
CLIENTS (Partial List)
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS

11/20
Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley & Jennett LLP, Los Angeles
Gillin, Scott, Alperstein, Glantz & Simon, Encino
Gordon & Rees, San Diego
Graham, Vaage & Cisneros, Glendale
Greenberg, Glusker, Fields, Claman & Machtinger, Los Angeles Hagenbaugh & Murphy, Santa Ana and Glendale
Hahn & Hahn, Pasadena
Hamrick, Garrotto, Briskin & Pene, Thousand Oaks
Hanger, Steinberg, Shapiro & Ash, Woodland Hills
Harder LLP, Beverly Hills
Hastie and Kirschner, Oklahoma City
Hennelly & Grossfeld, Marina Del Rey
Hershorin & Henry, LLP, Foothill Ranch
Higgs, Fletcher & Mack, San Diego
Hilbert & Satterly, San Diego
Lore Hilburg, Esq., Los Angeles
Horn & Waxman, Encino
Horgan, Rosen, Beckham & Coren, Calabasas
Horton & DeBolt, Chatsworth
Irell & Manella, Los Angeles
Irsfeld, Irsfeld & Younger, LLP, Glendale
Barak Issacs, Esq., Encino
Ives, Kirwan & Dibble, Los Angeles
Iwasaki, Thomas & Sheffield, Los Angeles
Johns, Marrs, Ellis & Hodge LLP, Houston, Texas
Katz, Hoyt, Bell & Seigel, Los Angeles
Kellner, Chehebar & Deveney, New York
Klinedinst PC, Los Angeles
Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Glendale
Kudo & Daniels, Los Angeles
LaFollette, Johnson, DeHass, Fesler & Ames, Los Angeles LeClair Ryan, Los Angeles
Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard, Los Angeles
Levinson, Kaplan, Arshonsky & Kurtz, Encino
Lipofsky & Lande, Beverly Hills
Loeb and Loeb, Los Angeles
Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, Los Angeles and San Diego Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, Irvine
Marcus, Watanabe, Snyder & Dave, Los Angeles
Martin & Stamp, Long Beach
McCann & Carroll, Carlsbad
McIntosh Law Corporation, Long Beach
Joel F. McIntyre, Esq., Glendora
Robert J. McKay, Esq., Pasadena
McKenna & Cuneo, Los Angeles
Ken Meyer, Culver City
Meyers & McConnell, Brentwood
May 2, 2022 Item 09 343 July 25, 2022 Item 10
CLIENTS (Partial List)
OTIS E. HACKETT, MAI, SRPA, ASA, CCIM, CRE, FRICS

11/20
Milam & Larsen, Pasadena
Miller, Starr & Regalia, Walnut Creek
Morris, Polich & Purdy, Orange and Los Angeles
Daniel T. Mosier, Redding
Mower, Koeller, Nebeker & Carlson, Irvine
Munger, Tolles & Olsen, Los Angeles
Murchison & Cummings, Los Angeles
Patrick Naylon, Esq., Sherman Oaks
Oliver, Vose, Sandifer, Murphy & Lee, Los Angeles
O'Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles
James L. Pagano, Esq., San Jose
Paladin Law Group, LLP, Santa Barbara
Paul Hastings, LLP, Los Angeles
Phillips, Spallas & Angstadt, Los Angeles
Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman LLP, Los Angeles
Polk & Berke, Brentwood
Proctor & Proctor, Burbank
Public Counsel
Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges, LLP, Los Angeles Richards, Watson, Dreyfuss & Gershon, Los Angeles
Richardson, Fair & Cohen, Riverside
Robinson, Wolas & Diament, Los Angeles
Rosman & Germain, Los Angeles
Rutan & Tucker, Costa Mesa
Samuels, Green, Steel & Adams, LLP, Irvine
Schaffer, Lax, McNaughton & Chen, Los Angeles
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Los Angeles
Shulman Bunn LLP, Newport Beach
Specter & Willoughby, LLP, Newport Beach
James D. Sumner, Jr., Esq., Los Angeles
Tompkins & Parrington, Alhambra
Tuttle & Taylor, Los Angeles
Tyre, Kamins, Katz & Granof, Los Angeles
Vok, Newman, Gralla & Karp, Los Angeles
Walleck, Shane & Stanard, Woodland Hills
Weil & Drage, Laguna Hills
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Los Angeles
Wolfe & Wyman, Irvine
Workman, Sullivan & Dee, Los Angeles
Wyman, Bautzer, Christensen, Kuchel & Silbert, Los Angeles Steven L. Zelig, Esq., Brentwood
May 2, 2022 Item 09 344 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Robin Crabtree <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 4:26 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Ashley Jones; David Druker-Private; Dwight Worden-Private; Terry TG. Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez RN; Dan Quirk
Subject: Red Dot Item #9 city council agenda
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

Thank you
Robin and Dan Crabtree
140 25 th st…DM
Sent from my iPad
1 May 2, 2022 Item 09 345 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Chelsea Ziskin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2022 3:09 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red dot 624 8th st. APN: 300-252-14-00
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

From: Kelly Welch <[email protected]>
Date: April 19, 2022 at 12:30:21 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Ziskin Remodel
Hi….We are writing in favor of the Ziskin remodel. It is totally unacceptable and ridiculous that an appeal should be granted when their remodel was voted on and approved in front of the Del Mar Review Board. There is no basis for this appeal. The party that is appealing has one goal in mind……to wear the Ziskin’s down so that they will eventually give up and move away. I watched them do this same thing with the property behind them. Why and how are you allowing this to happen? All the Ziskins are trying to do is build a small home that will help fit their family and improve our street. Why does the family next door to the Ziskins have so much influence?
Sincerely,
Kelly and Pat Welch
431 8th Street
1 May 2, 2022 Item 09 346 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Pamela Richards <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 9:08 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: RED DOT ITEM: red dot - 624 8th St. APN: 300-252-14-00 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To the Del Mar City Council:

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

Families strengthen our neighborhoods and our community.

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

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

Del Mar, CA 92014
cell: 619-787-2582
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 1 May 2, 2022 Item 09 347 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Susie Macnamara <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2022 4:14 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: 624 8th Street (APN:300-252-14-00)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

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

Susie MacNamara
Sent from my iPad
2 May 2, 2022 Item 09 348 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Terri Pavelko <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2022 4:35 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: David Druker; Dwight Worden-Private; Tracy Martinez; Terry Gaasterland; [email protected]
Subject: Red Dot Letter regarding Hook-Wilson/Ziskin Appeal Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

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

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

I am passionate that our DRB process be a fair and respectful process for all Del Mar citizens. The Ziskins have designed their home within all the onerous regulations and guidelines Del Mar has in place, playing by the book in all regards. They have in good faith spent two and a half years trying to workout a peaceful resolution with Hook-Wilson to no avail.
3 May 2, 2022 Item 09 349 July 25, 2022 Item 10
2 I ask City Council to stop this insanity!! Uphold the Ziskin DRB approval, respecting the decision of the hard working DRB board members you placed and let the Ziskins build their 1600 sq. ft. family home!!
Respectively,
Terri Pavelko
Terri Pavelko
1661 Luneta Drive
Del Mar, CA 92014
Home: 858-794-1659
Cell: 858-395-7806
4 May 2, 2022 Item 09 350 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Matt Ziskin <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 8:06 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Dwight Worden; Tracy Martinez; Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk Cc: Brian Church; Matt And Chelsea Ziskin
Subject: Ziskin Family Letter to City Council Re: De Novo Hearing DRB21-018 Attachments: Ziskin Letter to City Council.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council Members,
Please find our attached letter regarding the De Novo Hearing for DRB21-018. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or need any additional information prior to the hearing.

Best regards,
Chelsea and Matt Ziskin
5 May 2, 2022 Item 09 351 July 25, 2022 Item 10
LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL RE: DE NOVO HEARING DRB21-018
We are Chelsea and Matt Ziskin and along with our four young sons, we have resided in our Del Mar home since 2015. Over the last two years we have been pursuing approval to rebuild our aging home to provide a new house on our property in Del Mar where we can continue to raise our boys. The first step was selecting a respected and experienced local architect who understood how things worked in Del Mar. Over the last two years, we have done everything by the book – CPP1, CPP2, reaching out and providing transparency with neighbors, following the DRO, meeting with members of the DRB, compromising and making adjustments to our plans to address all reasonable concerns.

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

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

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

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

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

It is staff’s determination that: 1) the DRB thoroughly reviewed and considered the application in accordance with the DMCC, Del Mar Community Plan, and Local Coastal Program; 2) the appeal does not warrant a de novo hearing; and 3) the City Council should uphold the DRB’s approval of the application.

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

It is staff’s recommendation that the concerns cited within the appeal have been addressed to the greatest extent feasible by the Design Review Board. In rendering its determination, the Board considered standards enumerated in the Del Mar Municipal Code, the Staff Report, Board Member site visits, submitted materials, testimony (written and oral) from the Applicant and members of the public.
6 May 2, 2022 Item 09 352 July 25, 2022 Item 10
We recognize that, as a De Novo hearing, the Council’s review is a new one. But we ask that the Council review the considerable deliberations and action of the DRB, and likewise, see that our project has been honed to comply with the Design Review Ordinance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Chelsea and Matt Ziskin and Family
7 May 2, 2022 Item 09 353 July 25, 2022 Item 10
Response to Appellants’ Red Dot Letter Dated 4/28/22
• The initial paragraphs of their letter focus on compliance with and respect for the laws. This is notable as the appellants have repeatedly displayed a willingness to circumvent laws that prohibit trespassing and vandalism by aggressively cutting vegetation belonging to us and to their other neighbor to the west at 623 Hoska, Susie MacNamara. While it seems important to them that others respect the laws, their actions show that they don’t hold themselves to the same standard.
• While the first two paragraphs focus on the importance of following the DRO as law. The next set of paragraphs and bullet points seem to suggest that City Council has the power to disregard the DRO which earlier was described to be the law in Del Mar. o The first set of bullet points focus on our property’s substandard size and large city right-of-way in front of our property. These aspects of our property are exactly why a two-story home is necessary to allow for adequate living and yard space for our family.

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

Consequently, the addition of a second story results in the appearance of a single story from the street level since the majority of the first floor sits below the street level. o The second set of bullet points indicate that our lot is a flat, buildable lot currently supporting a single-story house. While it is true that our current house is a single story, its positioning on the lot does not meet current code required setbacks. To comply with current code, it is necessary to move the home further toward the front of our lot which is not flat.
• The next paragraph and sets of bullet points include the appellants’ objections to our project. It should be noted that the vast majority of our neighborhood does not share their objections or agree with their points.
o Item 6 in their list addresses the impact on our neighborhood. It should be noted that during the seven years we have lived in our home, there have been four different neighbors living in the three adjacent properties to the appellants. During that time, the appellants have had conflicts and threatened or pursued legal action against all four neighbors. I do not know of any other neighbors in our immediate area who have that kind of track record when it comes to adversely impacting the neighborhood. • Pages 3 to 5 focus on the appellants’ concern about the view from a portion of their yard that represents 15% of the western frontage of their property. Per DMMC 23.08.40, view impacts are assessed from a property’s primary living area which does not include outdoor spaces. A few specific, misleading points raised in these pages include:
o “From my kitchen table…there is sunlight and blue skies with vegetation blowing in the breeze. However, now when I look up, I see story poles. Those poles are telling a gloomy tale that 100% of the sunlight and blue sky would be forever obliterated.”  In 2015, when we purchased our home, the Eugenia trees on the west side of our property were 25 feet tall. At that time, they were over 30 years old. They existed long before the appellants purchased their home in 1999. The appellants cut our trees down to 11-foot-tall stumps without permission in 2015. The appellants filed a tree and scenic view complaint that was rejected by a unanimous vote by the Planning Commission and then their appeal of that decision was rejected by City Council. Currently, those trees stand at approximately 16 feet tall. When they are restored to their original 25 feet, the trees will obscure the appellants view of our proposed home from their primary living space.
8 May 2, 2022 Item 09 354 July 25, 2022 Item 10
 As shown in the satellite photo in Exhibit B below. Our proposed home occupies approximately 15% of the western frontage and will sit approximately 50 feet to the south of their home. There is absolutely no truth to the exaggerated claim that our home will obliterate “100% of the sunlight and blue sky”. o “Every time I walk from the driveway to our home, I admire our view.”  In the images shown in Exhibit A below, you will see that the small ocean view the appellants currently have from their yard will be greatly expanded to the south of their property when our project is complete. Further, the vegetation that is shown below the ocean view is on the appellants’ property and at their discretion, they could lower it and create an even larger ocean view. We visited the appellants prior to the last DRB meeting to try to come to a compromise and when we brought that point up to them, we were told “that is too far to walk from our house”.
• Pages 7 to 9 focus on the grading required to address current drainage issues due to our property being located below the street level.
o The first sentence on page 7 indicates that “grading is not story poled” which is incorrect. The story poles depict the height of the home after grading has been completed, so grading is indeed “story-poled”.
o The rest of pages 7 to 9 contain several incorrect assertions about grading and heights.

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

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

This statement ignores the fact that mature trees currently exist on two sides of the property and will remain.
• Pages 11 to 13 discuss the compatibility with the neighborhood. This was discussed at length by the DRB and has also been referenced by the many neighbors who are supportive of our project. The appellants seem to be the only ones who have these concerns about compatibility with the neighborhood and no one has joined them to share these concerns. Some of the attributes of our property that are unique to the homes referenced by the appellants include 9 May 2, 2022 Item 09 355 July 25, 2022 Item 10
the fact that our property resides below street level and the larger than typical right-of-way between the street and the start of our property line.
o The result of the property residing below street level is the proposed two-story home appears to be much closer to a one-story home as much of the first story is below the street level.
o The impact of the large right-of-way is the home can be located at the required setback from our property line and feel as though it is set back much further from the street.

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

10 May 2, 2022 Item 09 356 July 25, 2022 Item 10
Exhibit A: Depictions of the Current View and New Views Opened Up By Our Project 11 May 2, 2022 Item 09 357 July 25, 2022 Item 10
Exhibit B: The Proposed Home Will Occupy ~15% of the Appellants’ Western Property and Is Situated ~50 Feet South of Their Home

12 May 2, 2022 Item 09 358 July 25, 2022 Item 10
Exhibit C: This Section Shows How Privacy Will Be Maintained for Our Neighbors to the West

Exhibit D: This Depiction Shows How Our Neighbors to the West will be Unable to See Our Home from Their Yard
13 May 2, 2022 Item 09 359 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: CAROL MORE <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 11:09 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: to uphold the Ziskins DRB approval.

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

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

Carol More
230 22nd Street, Del Mar
14 May 2, 2022 Item 09 360 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Cathie Hays <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 1:27 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot: 624 8th Street APN 300-252-14-00
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Del Mar City Council Members:

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

Thank you for your time and service,
Cathie Hays
2986 Sandy Lane
Del Mar, CA 92014
15 May 2, 2022 Item 09 361 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Camilla Rang <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 8:02 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 9 on City Council meeting agenda April 2, 2022.

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Camilla Rang
159 10th Street, Del Mar, CA 92014
16 May 2, 2022 Item 09 362 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Jamie Jensen <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 11:07 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: City Council hearing for 624 8th Street 5/2/2022 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
We are writing in support of the Ziskin family home, we are neighbors at 434 8th Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you
Henrik & Jamie Jensen
17 May 2, 2022 Item 09 363 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Sherri Williams <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 12:49 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: red dot - 624 8th St. APM: 300-252-14-00
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Members of the City Council:

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

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

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

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

Please allow the Ziskin family to proceed with their project.

Sincerely,
Troy & Sherri Williams
18 May 2, 2022 Item 09 364 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 3:05 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot / Ziskin / 624 8th Street
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

PLEASE. Look at the basic facts. It is a simple determination. The design went through the process. All the powers that be approved the project. DENY THE APPEAL! Julie Pinney
727 Kalamath Drive
19 May 2, 2022 Item 09 365 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Whitney Stevens <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 5:00 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: red dot - 624 8th st. APN: 300-252-14-00
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
I wanted to write a quick note regarding the Ziskin’s project’s approval under appeal (APN 300-252-14-00). We have been following the progress of the Ziskin project and wholeheartedly support the DRB’s approval of the project. We have lived in Del Mar for several years and had children in school with the Ziskin family. They are wonderful family to call neighbors in Del Mar and we look forward to them building their new home as approved by the DRB and raising their four boys in Del Mar.

Kind Regards,
Whitney Stevens
20 May 2, 2022 Item 09 366 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Jill Ellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 6:56 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot: 624 8th st. APN: 300-252-14-00”
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>
> Del Mar Council Members and City Clerk:
>
> We wish to comment on the proposed Ziskin house at 624 8th Street. The Ziskin family has thrown themselves wholeheartedly into being members of the Del Mar community ever since they moved in. These are the kind of people that we should all embrace in our city. They are among the very few families with young children who have moved into the area during the 32 years that we have lived on 8th Street. >
> We can see the story poles and have looked at the proposal. This looks like a fine addition to the neighborhood and we endorse it. We think that the upgrade from an old bungalow style house will improve the surrounding neighborhood. We can see that it was approved by the Design Review Board. >
> We have had two notices delivered to our house and an email from one household on our block that objects to the Ziskin proposal. One of their points is that this area is primarily a neighborhood of one story homes, and that a 2 story house in this location would detract from the neighborhood character. We disagree. Standing on our property, we can easily see at least 8 houses in addition to our own that are 2 story, which include a structure on the lot of the people who are appealing the DRB decision.
>
> In summary, we support the Ziskin proposal that was approved by the DRB. We request that the City Council confirm and uphold the decision by the DRB.
>
> Thank you for taking the time to read our letter.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jill Ellis
>
> Judd Westover
>
> 442 8th Street
> Del Mar
>
>
21 May 2, 2022 Item 09 367 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: John Cronin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 7:06 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: red dot - 624 8th st. APN: 300-252-14-00
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Members of the Council
We have been residents of Del Mar for 18 years and would like to take this opportunity to voice our support of the above project that has already been approved by the design review board.

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

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

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

Best regards,
John Cronin
The Cronin Family
523 Orchid Lane
Del Mar CA 92014
22 May 2, 2022 Item 09 368 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Jill Ellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 7:16 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Fwd: Red Dot: 624 8th st. APN: 300-252-14-00” May 2, 2022 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Begin forwarded message:

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for taking the time to read our letter.

Sincerely,
23 May 2, 2022 Item 09 369 July 25, 2022 Item 10
2 Jill Ellis
Judd Westover
442 8th Street
Del Mar
24 May 2, 2022 Item 09 370 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: john imperato <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 7:38 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Dwight Worden; Terry Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk; David Druker Subject: Red Dot - Ziskin appeal
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Del Mar Council Members,
I support of the Ziskin family in their efforts and believe that they been unfairly treated in the efforts to build a modest 1600 square foot home on 8th Street.

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

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

Thank you for your consideration of my point of view.

Sincerely,
John Imperato
2034 Santa Fe Ave
25 May 2, 2022 Item 09 371 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: 624 8th St. Project - DRB021-018
From: diana marquardt <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 5:27 PM
To: Planning Mail Box <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 624 8th St. Project - DRB021-018
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

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

Respectfully, Diana Marquardt
26 May 2, 2022 Item 09 372 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Bob Inbody <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 9:31 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Dwight Worden; Tracy Martinez; Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk Subject: RED DOT #9
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Del Mar Council Members,
I am writing you in support of the wonderful Ziskin family that has been unfairly harassed in the pursuit of building a modest 1600 square foot home on 8th Street.

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

Sincerely,
Robert inbody
Luneta Drive
Del Mar, CA
92014
Sent from my iPhone
1 May 2, 2022 Item 09 373 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: john schroeder <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 9:39 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Ziska’s home remodel
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I support approval for Ziskin house remodel. John Schroeder 1703 Coast Blvd. thank you Sent from my iPad
2 May 2, 2022 Item 09 374 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Christy Hahn <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 9:57 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Ziskin home. Item #9 Red Dot
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

Christy Hahn
2027 Coast Blvd. DM
Sent from my iPhone
3 May 2, 2022 Item 09 375 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Linda Lasher <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 10:02 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Dwight Worden; Tracy Martinez; Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk Subject: Red dot for item #9
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Councilmembers,
I am in support of the Design Review Board approval for this project, which was approved by a 5-2 vote.

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

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

Regards,
Linda Lasher
528 Tewa Ct.

Del Mar, Ca 92014
619.708.3719 c
4 May 2, 2022 Item 09 376 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Red Dot for Item #9on May 2, 2022 Agenda Del Mar City Council meeting Melinda Gould
City of Del Mar | Administrative Services
1050 Camino del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
| 858.704-3633 | [email protected]
City Hall is open for public services Monday-Thursday, from 7:30 AM- 5:30 PM and Friday from 7:30 AM- 4:30 PM. Counter hours for Planning and Building services are Monday and Wednesday between 1:00 PM to 5:30 PM or by appointment. All remote services will continue to be provided during regular City hours. Please check our City website at www.delmar.ca.us for more information.

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

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

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

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

Before and after photos below.

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

This evening the Ziskins should have the full support of the City Council, their neighbors, and the community to proceed as planned without a singular interference prohibiting them to move forward. 1 May 2, 2022 Item 09 377 July 25, 2022 Item 10
2 Sincerely,
Virginia Frankum
259 Sea Forest Court
2 May 2, 2022 Item 09 378 July 25, 2022 Item 10
3 3 May 2, 2022 Item 09 379 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: DRB21-018
From: Brooke Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 10:53 AM
To: Sarah Krietor <[email protected]>
Cc: Planning Mail Box <[email protected]>
Subject: DRB21-018
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

May 2, 2022
Dear Del Mar City Council,
I am the homeowner of 641 Hoska, which falls within 300 feet of the 624 8th street project. I would like to re-submit my objection to said project in anticipation of the May 2nd, 2022 hearing.

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

Code 23.08.010 exists for this very purpose--to ensure that there are limitations to the extent to which a neighbor can diminish the property value of those within proximity. Purchasing a home is one of the most significant investments that most individuals make in a lifetime. How could one properly determine the value of a property if its most valuable characteristics--scenic ocean views--- could potentially be disrupted at any given moment? Part of the code currently applies to "primary scenic view," but in a community such as Del Mar with comfortable weather year round--many people derive enjoyment (and significant property value) from their yards--and not simply their homes. This 4 May 2, 2022 Item 09 380 July 25, 2022 Item 10
2 proposed construction leaves in jeopardy the homes, property values, and quality of life, for thousands of Del Mar residents.

The project is specifically in violation of at least three items under Chapter 23.08. The construction violates Code 23.08.072 letter E : "The design will cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate materially in appearance or value. " It also violates letter J : "The proposed development locates structures so as to unreasonably, adversely impact upon outdoor areas on adjacent properties." Lastly, it violates Code 23.08.077 letter H: "The proposed development unreasonably encroaches upon primary scenic views of neighboring property." Input from the planning Department should also be considered and not disregarded. They are comprised of a professional staff and their insights on projects such as these are valuable to our community--and their recommendations should be upheld. The planning Department has also expressed concerns related to neighborhood scale, neighborhood compatibility, and the impact on adjacent properties.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you. ~Brooke Garcia 5 May 2, 2022 Item 09 381 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Bryce Dixon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 10:57 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot - 624 8th St APN:300-252-14-00
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City of Del Mar:

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

Sincerely,
--
Bryce Dixon
310.435.6976
@brycehdixon
6 May 2, 2022 Item 09 382 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Karen Powell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:12 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Dwight Worden; Tracy Martinez; Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk Subject: ⬤ #9
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and Members of the Council,
I am writing to express my support for the 624 8th Street home project, as approved by the Design Review Board. I am appalled at the illegitimate and illogical harassment this fine young family has endured in the process of trying to build their home. These are the people we should be welcoming into our village, as they will be and are full-time residents who are currently very supportive of and will continue to be involved with the community.

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

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

Respectfully,
Karen Powell
329 10th Street
Del Mar, CA
92014
Sent from my iPhone
7 May 2, 2022 Item 09 383 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Tim Barb Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:20 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Matthew and Chelsea Ziskin Nigel Hook and Janet Wilson 624 8th Street (APN# 300-252-14-00)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

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

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

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

Tim & Barb Davis
1 May 2, 2022 Item 09 384 July 25, 2022 Item 10
Dean and Monica Meredith
1956 Seaview Ave.

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

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

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Dean and Monica Meredith
2 May 2, 2022 Item 09 385 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Sarah Krietor
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:46 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: 624 8thStreet-DRB21-018,LC21-008, CDP21-012
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dail Peirce <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc:

Bcc:

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

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

The construction project is of unbecoming bulk and design, totally unlike the neighboring properties. Why would this be permitted?
Sincerely,
Dail M. Peirce
3 May 2, 2022 Item 09 386 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: judy woodhead <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:49 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Dwight Worden; Tracy Martinez; Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk Subject: Red Dot for item #9
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Members of the Council, I want to take this opportunity to voice my support for the Ziskin project on 8th Street that has been approved by the design review board in a 5-2 vote.

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

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

Sincerely, Judy Woodhead, 319 Bellaire St. Del Mar, CA
4 May 2, 2022 Item 09 387 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:54 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; [email protected] [email protected]; Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk
Cc: Jennifer Gavin
Subject: Red Dot exhibits
Attachments: Ziskin Neighborhood context exhibit.pdf; Ziskin - Hook Wilson Yard view comparison.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk and City Council members,
I am attaching several exhibits regarding tonight’s DRB appeal de novo hearing. These exhibits are intended to correct some of the inaccuracies found in the appellant’s red dot letter submitted last week.

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

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

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Brian Church AIA
Brian Church Architecture
5 May 2, 2022 Item 09 388 July 25, 2022 Item 10
Ziskin House
DRB21-018/ LC21-008/ CDP21-012
Comparison of views from yard at east neighbor
(Hook-Wilson, 635 Hoska)

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

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

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

4. The Ziskin’s landscaping hedge along their east property line can be grown to screen as much of the house as deemed appropriate (see slides 4-5) 6 May 2, 2022 Item 09 389 July 25, 2022 Item 10
Current view from Hook Wilson yard
View illustrating illegally cut hedge regrown (below right side) 7 May 2, 2022 Item 09 390 July 25, 2022 Item 10
View from Hook Wilson yard with new house added
View from Hook Wilson yard with trees in front yard demolished – view improved 8 May 2, 2022 Item 09 391 July 25, 2022 Item 10
View from Hook Wilson Yard if hedge at side of house is allowed to grow to height of old hedge 9 May 2, 2022 Item 09 392 July 25, 2022 Item 10
Ziskin House
DRB21-018/ LC21-008/ CDP21-012
Neighborhood Context
2 two story houses in neigborhood

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

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

3. The appellants guest house next door is two stories

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

5. During initial discussions regarding the Ziskin’s new house, Janet Wilson stated that a two-story house would be acceptable (see attached email excerpt).
10 May 2, 2022 Item 09 393 July 25, 2022 Item 10
The map above notes the houses in the neighborhood with two stories (green) The neighborhood is not “predominantly one-story” (Design Guidelines C.1.H) The house has been designed to minimize two story appearance per Design Guideline C.1.H 11 May 2, 2022 Item 09 394 July 25, 2022 Item 10
The following is an excerpt from Janet Wilson during initial discussions regarding the Ziskin’s new house. [Begin Copy]
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Date: April 5, 2015 at 4:46:03 PM PDT
To: Nigel Hook <[email protected]>
Cc: Matt Ziskin <[email protected]>, [email protected], Janet Wilson SilverHook <[email protected]>, Chelsea Bullen <[email protected]>
Subject: Hook Ocean View
Hi Chelsea, Hi Matt,
It was nice having you over on Friday evening.

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

Nigel is waiting on the soft copy. Were you planning to send it soon? Janet
12 May 2, 2022 Item 09 395 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Michael Urkov <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 12:34 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Permit DRB21-018, LC21-008, CDP21-012
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I currently reside at 641 Hoska Dr and for the last four plus years we have worked with the city and neighbors to improve and make this home a comfortable and pleasant place to live. We have a very livable backyard and a enjoy a partial ocean view that was part of the appeal of this property to begin with. We are very much opposed to the current plans being considered at 624 8th St. It really impacts the property at 635 Hoska Dr as well as ours. This domino effect is not a good precedent...Del Mar has an outstanding Planning Department and we feel their recommendations should be upheld. Respecfully, Michael A Urkov.......641 Hoska Dr 1 May 2, 2022 Item 09 396 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Revised red dot for Item 9: Deny appeal of DRB appeal of Ziskin family project on 8th St
From: Laura DeMarco <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 12:43 PM
To: Dwight Worden <[email protected]>; Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>; Tracy Martinez <[email protected]>; Dan Quirk <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk Mail Box <[email protected]>
Subject: Revised red dot for Item 9: Deny appeal of DRB appeal of Ziskin family project on 8th St CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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

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

As you can see by the satellite image below, the Ziskin’s current small house and tiny lot is dwarfed by the main house of their adjacent eastern neighbor on Hoska. This neighbor’s primary view from their main house is not impacted, only those from their croquet court in their very large yard. In fact, the Ziskin’s project will give this neighbor’s 2-story guest house a new ocean view.
2 May 2, 2022 Item 09 397 July 25, 2022 Item 10
2 The Ziskin’s proposed new 2,000 SF house reduces the footprint of their old house and increases the outdoor play space for their active young children by shifting more living space to a second story. Their neighbor’s guest house is also two stories as are many other houses in the neighborhood.

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

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

Thanks for your consideration,
Laura and Ralph DeMarco
3 May 2, 2022 Item 09 398 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
Subject: FW: Wilson/Hook and Ziskin project
From: Dean Meredith <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 12:02 PM
To: Dwight Worden <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>; David Druker <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Wilson/Hook and Ziskin project
Dean Council Members,
I am writing in support of the Staff Report for the Ziskin project and how it impacts the Wilson/Hook property.

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

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

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

Please call me if you have any questions.

Dean
Dean Meredith, A.I.A

A R C H I T E C T
cell: 858.245.6892
fax: 858-755-9171
www.deanmereditharchitecture.com
[********** EXTERNAL EMAIL MESSAGE **********]
4 May 2, 2022 Item 09 399 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: City Council Meeting - May 2nd (this Monday) 4:30 - De Novo Hearing of 624 8th Street - DRB21-018
From: Donoghue, Daniel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 11:45 AM
To: Planning Mail Box <[email protected]>
Cc: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>; Donoghue, Daniel <[email protected]> Subject: Re: City Council Meeting - May 2nd (this Monday) 4:30 - De Novo Hearing of 624 8th Street - DRB21-018 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Del Mar City Council members,
We have lived in Del Mar for 40 years, and at our current residence of 667 Hoska Drive, immediately east and a little up the hill from Janet Wilson and Nigel Hooke, for 23 years. I am very opposed to the proposed project at 624 8th St in its current form. The new residents certainly have the right to rebuild a new home on their lot, but why does it need to be done at the expense of the very limited view corridor currently enjoyed by Janet and Nigel? The proposed new structure will completely block the existing views, and the bulk and scale are out of proportion for our neighborhood.

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

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

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

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

Thank you! Janet
5 May 2, 2022 Item 09 400 July 25, 2022 Item 10
2 We are now Ocean Aware. We do not want to become Wall Aware.
6 May 2, 2022 Item 09 401 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Jayne Haines <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 4:22 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Dispute
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

We believe that planning has done a good job.
1 May 2, 2022 Item 09 402 July 25, 2022 Item 10

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

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

Item 9 – De Novo Hearing (Ziskin)

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

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

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

3. Is there room on the site for an ADU to be added if the current proposal is approved and built?
1 May 2, 2022 Items 6,8,9,11,12 403 July 25, 2022 Item 10 Yes, it does appear there is space in the rear yard should the Applicants decide to pursue an ADU in the future. This would be applied for under a separate non-discretionary review separate from any Design Review process for the house. The Applicants have not expressed an interest to the City for an ADU at this time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ADU itself does not count toward the floor area maximum. The floor area bonus available pursuant to the contract can be applied toward a proposed addition on the lot such as a bedroom addition to the primary dwelling unit. 2 May 2, 2022 Items 6,8,9,11,12 404 July 25, 2022 Item 10

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

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

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

5. Is there a proposed expiration date on the extension of the ADU Pilot Program? The existing ordinance is set to expire on June 1, 2022, unless extended by action of the City Council. If the proposed ordinance to extend the program is adopted, it will extend the program for an additional two-year period, and could be further extended through City Council action beyond that time. See page 2 of the proposed ordinance under the last whereas statement.
3 May 2, 2022 Items 6,8,9,11,12 405 July 25, 2022 Item 10 Item 11 – City Council Workshop Follow-Up Item

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

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

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

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

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

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

The title of this item is directly from the Council “wish list,” which stayed the same for each of the identified items, with a status update provided for each. It is correct that the Council only gave directly to follow-up on what would be involved with updating the City’s ordinance to allow for CBD retail products, which is summarized by staff in this section of 4 May 2, 2022 Items 6,8,9,11,12 406 July 25, 2022 Item 10 the agenda report. As discussed at the workshop, the City currently has prohibitions in place for the sale of all kinds of cannabis-related products. This includes all parts, derivatives, and products of the plant, including medical and non-medical marijuana, as well as CBD. The scope of work identified in the agenda report on page 9 outlines what would be involved if the City Council desires to amend the cannabis provisions to accommodate CBD sales and account for changes in applicable State laws. The original Council “wish list” item discussed during the March 9th Council workshop was entitled “Adoption of an Ordinance Allowing for Cannabis and CBD Retail Sales/Stores,” though during the workshop, the Council narrowed the focus to look at allowing CBD sales.

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

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

Item 12 – Proposed Citywide Staffing Plan

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

The City’s Beach and Community Patrol Officer may detain individuals, without restraint, when an infraction is witnessed. Procedurally, for a citation to be issued, they, or another City employee with citation authority, must witness the infraction. They do not have the full range of Peace Officer arrest powers and, in the case of non-witnessed crimes, those that require investigation, or there is potential danger to the Officer, they, like our other City staff, observe and report while requesting additional resources from the Sheriff’s Department. The position offers a high-touch based approach to addressing municipal code violations during periods of high demand as well as working closely with both Parking and Code Enforcement to help expand the hours of their services.
5 May 2, 2022 Items 6,8,9,11,12 407 July 25, 2022 Item 10 07/15/22
Exhibit Letter
Project address: 624 8th Street
Project Name: Ziskin
City of Del Mar
City Council
We moved the house west by 24” to provide more clearance to the east neighbors, but narrowed the second floor so that it didn’t get any closer to the west neighbors. We couldn’t move the house farther north, as that would be problematic for the neighbors to the north and northwest and would also look into the west neighbors’ backyard. We discussed it with those three neighbors who I believe wrote letters expressing their concern.

Brian Church AIA
408 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Jennifer Gavin
From: Arline Paa <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 11:21 AM
To: Jennifer Gavin
Cc: Amy Paa-Rogers; Michael Paa; [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: 624 8th Street
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.

Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Arlinepaa <[email protected]>
Date: July 6, 2022 at 8:20:14 PM PDT
To: Jennifer Gavin <[email protected]>
Subject: 624 8th Street
Jennifer:

Could you please forward this invitation for a site visit to City Council, thank you! To Whom It May Concern,
July 7, 2022
I have reviewed the most recent plans for the proposed home at 624 8th Street, and frankly I am concerned. It appears that the most recently submitted plans have moved the first floor (and roof top deck) two feet closer to our property line and home at 612 8th Street, located west of the proposed project. This is problematic.

We have a harmonious relationship with the Ziskins, and have enjoyed watching their family grow over the years, and it is this relationship that has kept me from speaking up earlier. I completely understand the Ziskin’s desire for a two story house, moved to the front of their property, it opens up new ocean views for their home, and gives them updated space for their growing family. Throughout the design process they have made efforts to respect our property, and we have appreciated this communication.

I have tried to remain out of the fray, not expressing any concern about a looming two story home, on a lot where there has always been a single story house. However, I feel moving the project closer to our home will impact our privacy. Even before these revisions, we were concerned about the privacy of our entryway and eastside of our property. These new plans may solve a problem to the east of the Ziskin property, but it certainly is less than ideal for us.

I would like to request a site visit, if possible so that the Council can be familiar with the project from our perspective at 612 8th Street. 858 922 7976
409 July 25, 2022 Item 10
2 Thank You,
Arline Paa
410 July 25, 2022 Item 10
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Karen Brindley, Planning and Community Development Director Matt Bator, AICP, Principal Planner
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: July 25, 2022
SUBJECT: Introduction of an Ordinance Approving a Development Agreement (DA 22- 001) and an Associated Regulatory Housing Agreement for a Mixed-Use Commercial and Residential Development Located at 941 Camino del Mar (APNs: 300-221-32 & 33)(“Property”).

REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council introduce the proposed Ordinance approving Development Agreement DA22-001 (Attachment A) and an associated Regulatory Housing Agreement for 941 Camino Del Mar (Exhibit C to Attachment A).

PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:

On July 11, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing to introduce an Ordinance that would approve a Development Agreement (DA22-001) and an associated Regulatory Housing Agreement for the entitlement development for 941 Camino del Mar (941 CDM).

Following a presentation from Planning staff and the Assistant City Attorney, several questions from Council members were addressed. A question that needed additional follow up was the whether the site would become a “by right” site (with a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre density) if the development of the site did not occur within the 6th Cycle Housing Element, since the proposed ten year term of the Development Agreement will extend into the 7th Housing Element Cycle.

The meeting was continued to July 25, 2022 in order for staff to consult with the City’s housing related special counsel, Barbara Kautz, with Goldfarb & Lipman, LLP. After consulting with Ms. Kautz, it has been determined that the requirement to allow “by-right” development at 941 Camino del Mar would only occur if the two affordable units at 941 CDM are not constructed in the current (6th) Housing Element Cycle and if the 941 CDM site is designated by the City as a “housing site” in its 7th Cycle Housing Element since the site is currently designated for housing in the 6th cycle. In short, the City will have control over whether or not to designate this site for future housing in the 7th Cycle, should the development of the property be delayed into the 7th Cycle planning period. 1 July 25, 2022 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
941 CDM Development Agreement & Regulatory Housing Agreement July 25, 2022

Based on the information provided by Ms. Kautz identified above, staff is recommending the Council approve the Development Agreement as previously presented.

BACKGROUND:

In October 2016, the owners of 941 Camino del Mar and 307 10th Street submitted a Specific Plan (SP16-001) to the City commonly known as the 941 Camino Del Mar Specific Plan and associated entitlements to a two-story, 38,890 square-foot, mixed-use development that included eight residential units (including two dedicated as affordable to low-income households) and approximately 4,398 square-feet of commercial space. The Specific Plan also proposed “Exceptional Public Benefits” (EPBs) to justify the proposed deviations from the previously required development standards.

The proposed EPBs included:
 Construction of one additional affordable housing unit in addition to the minimum number already required pursuant to the Specific Plan (totaling two affordable units).
 Monetary contribution toward completion of the Camino Del Mar Streetscape Project in the amount of $35,000 or as approved by the City Council.  Monetary contribution toward completion of the Shores Park Master Plan Project in the amount of $50,000 or as approved by the City Council.  Monetary contribution toward completion of the Safe Railroad Crossing and Coastal Rail Trail Project in the amount of $25,000 or as approved by the City Council.
 Monetary contribution toward establishment and/or ongoing operation of a future City Shuttle System in the amount of $2,000 per year or as approved by the City Council.
 Monetary contribution toward purchase of Speed Limit Radar Signs in the amount of $12,000 or as approved by the City Council.
 Inclusion of Solar/Photovoltaic Paneling in final building design to reduce or offset development energy use.
 Monetary contribution toward purchase of public art in the amount of $15,000 or as approved by the City Council.
 The provision of Transient Occupancy Tax for any Residential Hospitality Uses of the market-rate units (non-affordable dwellings).

The monetary contributions outlined above to be provided to the City by the Developer together total $137,000.
2 July 25, 2022 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
941 CDM Development Agreement & Regulatory Housing Agreement July 25, 2022

Additional public benefits that would result from approval of the Specific Plan included:
 Undergrounding of existing utility poles adjacent to the site.  Construction of a new eight-inch sewer main in the Camino del Mar right-of-way to relocate an old sewer line which is outside of the current right-of-way.  Construction of project-fronting streetscape improvements in addition to the monetary contribution.

Following public hearings on June 18 and July 2, 2018, the City Council certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2007091007) and approved the 941 Camino Del Mar Specific Plan (“941 Specific Plan”) and associated General Plan Amendment for the future development of the Property. The City Council’s approvals were subsequently ratified in November 2018 by a citywide vote carried out in accordance with the California Elections Code. All EPBs listed above were included in the adopted Specific Plan approved by the Del Mar electorate
Following approval of the 941 Specific Plan by the electorate, an associated Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) was certified (approved) by the California Coastal Commission on May 9, 2019. A concurrent proposal for the previously described mixeduse development consistent with the standards of the Specific Plan was approved on October 15, 2018, by the City Council (due to an appeal of the Design Review Board’s decision). The development proposal was not subject to the aforementioned public vote.

Section 1.5.4 of the 941 Specific Plan provides the City of Del Mar with the option to require a Development Agreement to memorialize and further vest the rights, public benefits (including EPBs), and operational requirements embodied within the Specific Plan. The City enacted this requirement as a condition of project approval pursuant to Design Review Permit DRB18-008 (itself approved via City Council Resolution 2018-71). The 941 Specific Plan also requires the approval and recordation of a Regulatory “Housing” Agreement for the restricted (affordable) housing units.

Planning Commission Action:

At a May 10, 2022, Planning Commission hearing, the proposed Development Agreement and its associated exhibits, including the required regulatory housing agreement for the two income restricted (affordable) dwelling units were presented for consistency with findings in accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section 24.65.100 (Development Agreements-Determination by Planning Commission). The Planning Commission unanimously recommended City Council approval of the Development Agreement, with direction to the City Attorney to: 1) provide language in the Development Agreement regarding the City’s ability to authorize assignment of the development to a new property 3 July 25, 2022 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
941 CDM Development Agreement & Regulatory Housing Agreement July 25, 2022

owner; and 2) work with the property owner’s attorney to clarify language in the Housing Agreement grant deed that provides for the resetting of the 55 year affordability restriction with each sale of the affordable units.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

The documents discussed below were drafted by the City Attorney’s office and reviewed by special counsel with Goldfarb & Lipman, LLP who have an expertise in affordable housing.
941 Specific Plan Development Agreement
As required by City Council Resolution 2018-71, the Applicant (Property Owner) proposes to enter into a Development Agreement. A development agreement is a contract between the City and the property owner/developer which memorializes the rights, terms, benefits, and obligations of both parties, and is authorized by California Government Code sections 65864-65869.5. A development agreement expressly defines and vests the standards, laws, and procedures that govern a project, as well as time allowances, constraints, and deadlines. Depending on the scope of development, development agreements typically run for a period of 10 to 25 years. Procedurally, a development agreement is adopted by the City as an ordinance, is recorded with the property, and may only be modified with the mutual consent of all parties and is subject to annual reviews. The proposed 941 Specific Plan Development Agreement (“941 DA”) will be an exhibit of the adopted Ordinance, but it has been provided separately as Attachment B of this report for City Council’s review.

If adopted by the City Council as proposed, the 941 DA would have a term of 10 years and would “vest” all rights afforded to the developer for that period of time, including previously approved project entitlements (Design Review [DRB18-008], Coastal Development [CDP18-005], and Land Conservation [LC18-011] and Determination of Substantial Conformance [DSC20-020] Permits). Without an approved Development Agreement, the discretionary development entitlements would expire on October 15, 2022. In addition to other terms of the Development Agreement, the applicant will be obligated to submit the required monetary contributions to the City at the time the 941 DA is recorded with the County of San Diego, which will be approximately 30-days after City Council approval.

Regulatory Housing Agreement
The 941 Specific Plan also requires the Property Owner to enter into an affordable housing agreement, entitled “Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants” (Regulatory Agreement), with the City for regulation of the two (2) affordable housing units. The 941 Specific Plan and the proposed Development Agreement allow the residential units and commercial space to become condominiums through the 4 July 25, 2022 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
941 CDM Development Agreement & Regulatory Housing Agreement July 25, 2022

subsequent processing of a subdivision map. The property owners have declared their intention to process the tentative subdivision map and provide the affordable dwelling units as “for sale” condominiums. The Regulatory Agreement has been structured accordingly and is included as “DA Exhibit C” of the 941 DA. The Regulatory Agreement includes the following provisions:
 The affordable units will be deed restricted for 55-years for low-income (80% of Area Median Income) households and will be made available as “for sale” condominium units;
 Prior to completion of construction of the Project, the property owner (developer) cannot sell, transfer or dispose of the Property without obtaining written City consent;
 City has first option to purchase units from Property Owner at the Restricted Sales Price (low income) or may assign its option to another public agency or non-profit corporation;
 City can opt to purchase the affordable units. This option has been included in the event the City Council decides to purchase the affordable units and subsequently rent to income-qualified households. If the City Council decides the City should not purchase the affordable units, the property owner will sell the units to income qualified buyers;
 If sold to income qualified “First Buyer” instead of the City, property owner (developer) must adopt, submit and obtain approval from City of written purchaser selection policies and criteria (includes affirmative marketing plan, waiting list and written notification procedures to any rejected applicant including reason for rejecting the sale);
 For the Second and Subsequent Sales of the affordable units by the First Buyer:
 Unit must be sold to income qualified households and remain owner occupied; and;
 Sales/Transfers are allowed but restricted to income qualified households for a 55 year period, which restarts upon the sale/transfer.  Residential use only, owner occupied.
 No Short-Term Rental are allowed in affordable units;  Owners of the affordable units must pay all taxes, Home Owners Association, and government fees; and
 Procedures for any resale of the unit.
5 July 25, 2022 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
941 CDM Development Agreement & Regulatory Housing Agreement July 25, 2022

 Each subsequent purchaser will be required to enter into and record with the County Recorder an Affordable Housing Occupancy, Refinancing and Resale Deed Restriction Agreement (in the form attached to the Regulatory Agreement as an exhibit) to ensure long term affordability.

Standards of Review (“Findings”) for Development Agreements.

The City’s Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 24.65 establishes procedures and requirements for the City’s consideration of development agreements. DMMC Section

24.65.140 contains the standards of review for City Council approval of a Development Agreement. This section states:

No development agreement may be approved by the City Council unless all of the following conditions are met:

A. The City Council must find that:

1. The provisions of the agreement are consistent with the Community Plan and any applicable specific plan; and

2. The development agreement complies with all applicable zoning, subdivision, and building regulations and with the general and any relevant specific plan.

B. The agreement must state:

1. The specific duration of the agreement;

2. The permitted uses of the property;

3. The density and intensity of use;

4. The maximum height and size of proposed buildings;

5. Specific provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes.

Findings consistent with the provisions listed above have been included in the attached Ordinance (Attachment A).

HOUSING IMPACT STATEMENT:

This application is a request for City Council adoption of an Ordinance to approve a Development Agreement for a mixed-use development that includes eight residential units, 6 July 25, 2022 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
941 CDM Development Agreement & Regulatory Housing Agreement July 25, 2022

two of which will be dedicated as affordable to low-income households. Included within the Development Agreement is a Regulatory (Housing) Agreement and restrictive covenants for regulation of the two affordable housing units, which will count towards the 6th Cycle Housing Element Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation once building permits are issued for construction of the units.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item. The Development Agreement would result in the contribution of $137,000 to the City as Exceptional Public Benefits for the various purposes cited on pages 1 & 2 of this report. The funds would be due to the City within 30 days of the Development Agreement recordation.

As such, the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Operating and Capital Budget would be amended as part of the Midyear Budget Process to account for these revenues.

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:

A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR – SCH No. 2007091007) was prepared and processed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and certified by the City of Del Mar City Council on June 12, 2018 for the 941 Specific Plan and associated development project. This development agreement for the project has been assessed for compliance with the certified SEIR, and pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, no additional environmental review is required.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A - City Council Ordinance for approval of DA22-001 Attachment B - May 10, 2022 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-2022-04 Attachment C - Development Agreement DA22-001
7 July 25, 2022 Item 11

ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING FINDINGS FOR
AND APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, DA22-
001, FOR A MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 941 CAMINO DEL MAR
APNs: 300-221-32 & 300-221-33
WHEREAS, DM Asset Recovery LP (Property Owner) is the owner of that certain real property located in the City of Del Mar, County of San Diego, State of California commonly referred to as 941 Camino del Mar and 301 10th Street, APNs: 300-221-32 and 300-221-33 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, Property Owner submitted an application to the City of Del Mar (City) for approval of a Development Agreement and associated Regulatory Agreement for the affordable housing units between the Property Owner and the City to memorialize and further vest the rights, public benefits, including Exceptional Public Benefits (EPBs), and operational requirements for the construction and use of a new, two-story mixed-use structure to include approximately 4,398 square feet of commercial floor area, six marketrate residential units and two affordable residential units on land located at 941 Camino del Mar and 307 10th Street, Del Mar, California (“Property”); and WHEREAS, Development Agreements are subject to the provisions of California Government Code sections 85864-95869.5 and to the provisions of Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 24.65; and
WHEREAS, to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California enacted California Government Code sections 65864 et seq. (the “Development Agreement Statute”), which authorizes City to enter into an agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property regarding the development of such property; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Development Agreement Statute, the City has adopted rules and regulations, embodied in Chapter 24.65 of the Del Mar Municipal Code, establishing procedures and requirements for adoption and execution of development agreements; and
WHEREAS, in 2016 Property Owner submitted a Specific Plan to the City, as defined in California Government Code Section §65450 et seq., commonly known as the 941 Camino Del Mar Specific Plan (“The Plan”), intended to replace the Garden Del Mar Specific Plan adopted by the City Council in 2008 at the Property, and provide vision, development standards and design guidelines for the development of the Property; and
8 July 25, 2022 Item 11
ORDINANCE NO. ____

WHEREAS, Property Owner concurrently submitted a verified application to amend City’s General Plan (General Plan Amendment GPA18-001) pursuant to requirements of California Government Code Section §65350 – 65362; and WHEREAS, Property Owner concurrently submitted a verified application to amend City’s Certified Local Coastal Program (Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA18-001) pursuant to process and requirements of Division 20 of the California Public Resources Code (“California Coastal Act”); and
WHEREAS at a duly noticed public hearing conducted June 18, 2018, the City Council of the City of Del Mar adopted Resolution 2018-36 certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2007091007) with a Statement of Overriding Consideration for GPA18-001 and The Plan; adopted Ordinance 939 to rescind the Garden Del Mar Specific Plan and adopt the 941 Camino Del Mar Specific Plan (the "Plan"); and adopted Resolution 2018-37 approving GP18-001 and LCPA18-001 and authoring submittal of LCPA18-001 to the California Coastal Commission for certification; and
WHEREAS at a duly noticed public hearing conducted August 8, 2018, the City of Del Mar Design Review Board (DRB) adopted Resolution DRB-2018-008, conditionally approving development applications DRB18-008, CDP18-005, and LC18- 011 (Entitlements); and
WHEREAS on September 6, 2018, a timely appeal (Appeal) was filed to the City Council regarding the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Entitlements; and WHEREAS on October 1, 2018 the City Council of the City of Del Mar held a duly noticed initial consideration hearing of the Appeal, during which two City Council members voted to hear the Appeal as de novo in accordance with procedure enumerated in Chapter 1.12 of the Del Mar Municipal Code; and WHEREAS at a duly noticed de novo public hearing conducted October 15, 2018, the City Council of the City of Del Mar adopted Resolution 2018-71, conditionally approving Entitlements associated with the Plan; and
WHEREAS the Plan and associated GPA18-001 were concurrently submitted for approval by the citizens of Del Mar as Measure “T” at the General Municipal election held on November 6, 2018 and Measure T did pass by a majority vote of the electorate of the City of Del Mar; and
WHEREAS pursuant to requirements of the California Coastal Act, LCPA18-001 was submitted to the California Coastal Commission on December 21, 2018, and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA18-001 was certified by the California Coastal Commission on May 9, 2019; and
9 July 25, 2022 Item 11
ORDINANCE NO. ____

WHEREAS pursuant to Section 1.5.4 of the Plan and further memorialized as Condition of Approval “S-2” in City Council Resolution 2018-71, the City may utilize and has accordingly prepared, a Development Agreement (Agreement) to memorialize and further vest the rights and benefits in The Plan, including but not limited to, Exceptional Public Benefits and operational requirements; and
WHEREAS pursuant to Section 5.7.4 of the Plan, a Regulatory Affordable Housing Agreement was prepared and shall be entered into with the City to regulate the sale and operation of the deed restricted affordable housing units; and WHEREAS on May 10, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to review the Agreement, and at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard, the Planning Commission determined the Agreement was consistent with the City’s General Plan, the Plan, as well as GPA18-001 and LCPA18-001, and provided a recommendation pursuant to Resolution PC-2022-02 that the City Council approve the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, evidence was submitted and considered to include without limitation:
a. Written information submitted with the application.
b. Oral testimony from City staff, the applicant, and the public. c. The City staff report, dated May 10, 2022, which, along with its attachments, is incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein.
d. Additional information submitted during the hearing.

WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution PC-2022-04 recommending that the City Council approve Development Agreement DA22-001; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 65867 of the Government Code, the City Council, on July 25, 2022. held a duly noticed public hearing on Development Agreement DA22-001, during which, evidence was submitted and considered including without limitation:
a. Written information submitted with the application.
b. Oral testimony from Staff, the Property Owner and the public. c. The staff report, dated July 25, 2022, which, along with its attachments, is incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein.
d. Additional information submitted during the hearing. 10 July 25, 2022 Item 11
ORDINANCE NO. ____

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION ONE:

That with regards to Development Agreement DA 22-001, the City Council makes the following findings:

1. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR – SCH No. 2007091007) was prepared and processed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and certified by the City of Del Mar City Council on June 12, 2018.

2. The Development Agreement was prepared in accordance with Government Code Sections 85864-85869.5.

3. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the Del Mar Community Plan in that the Camino del Mar Specific Plan was previously determined by the City Council of the City of Del Mar to be consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the Del Mar Community Plan and there have been no significant changed circumstances or changes to the Del Mar Community Plan since the time of the approval.

4. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for the land use district in which the real property is located in that the entitled development is consistent with the zoning, land use and development regulations contained within the 941 Camino del Mar Specific Plan.

5. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice, in that the agreement provides for exceptional benefits to the City of Del Mar, including the provision of affordable housing and the construction and funding of public infrastructure consistent with the City capital improvement projects, and contributes funding to enhance City resources;

6. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare in that it will facilitate the development of public infrastructure which will improve pedestrian and vehicular circulation within the vicinity of the Property; and

7. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of the Property.
11 July 25, 2022 Item 11
ORDINANCE NO. ____

SECTION TWO:

The City Council, based upon the above-referenced findings, hereby approves and adopts Development Agreement DA22-001 between DM Asset Recovery, a Limited Partnership, and the City of Del Mar, in the form attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION THREE:

The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Development Agreement and directed to perform all acts authorized to be performed by the City Manager in the administration of the Development Agreement, pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement, including recordation of the Development Agreement with the Office of the San Diego County Recorder within 30 days of the date of effectiveness of the Development Agreement.

SECTION FOUR:

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.

SECTION FIVE:

This Ordinance was introduced on July 25, 2022.

SECTION SIX:

The City Clerk is directed to publish a summary of this Ordinance together with the votes cast thereon no less than five days prior to the consideration of its adoption and again within 15 days following adoption.

SECTION SEVEN:

This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _____ day of _____________ 2022.
_____________________________________
Dwight Worden, Mayor
City of Del Mar
12 July 25, 2022 Item 11
ORDINANCE NO. ____

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
City of Del Mar

ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CITY OF DEL MAR
I, SARAH KRIETOR, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. ____, which has been published pursuant to law, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the ____ day of _____________, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_______________________________________
Sarah Krietor, City Clerk/Administrative Services
Manager, City of Del Mar
13 July 25, 2022 Item 11

ATTACHMENT B
14 July 25, 2022 Item 11
15 July 25, 2022 Item 11
16 July 25, 2022 Item 11
17 July 25, 2022 Item 11
18 July 25, 2022 Item 11
1 ABOVE SPACE FOR RECORDER'S USE
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into in the City of Del Mar on this_ day of , 2022, by and between the City of Del Mar, a Municipal Corporation (the “City”), and DM Asset Recovery LP, a California limited partnership, (the “Developer”), pursuant to the authority of California Government Code sections 65864 et seq.

RECITALS
A. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California enacted California Government Code sections 65864 et seq. (the “Development Agreement Statute”), which authorizes City to enter into an agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property regarding the development of such property. The City of Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 24.65 (DA Exhibit A) establishes procedures and requirements for the City’s consideration of development agreements.

B. Developer has a legal interest in certain real property located in the City of Del Mar, County of San Diego, California consisting of approximately 25,524 square feet located at the southeast corner of Camino Del Mar and 10th Street (APN 300-221-32 and 300-221-33) and more specifically described in DA Exhibit B (“Property” or “Project Site”).

C. Developer submitted a Specific Plan to City, as defined in California Government Code Section §65450 et seq., commonly known as the 941 Camino Del Mar Specific Plan (“The Plan”), intended to replace the Garden Del Mar Specific Plan adopted by the City Council in 2008 at the Property, and provide vision, development standards and design guidelines for the development of the Property.

D. Developer concurrently submitted a verified application to amend City’s General Plan (General Plan Amendment GPA18-001) pursuant to requirements of California Government Code Section §65350 – 65362.

E. Developer concurrently submitted a verified application to amend City’s Certified Local Coastal Program (Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA18-001) pursuant to process

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:

City of Del Mar
City Clerk’s Office
1050 Camino Del Mar,
Del Mar, CA 92014
Recording Fees Exempt Pursuant to Government
Code § 27383

ATTACHMENT C
19 July 25, 2022 Item 11
2 and requirements of Division 20 of the California Public Resources Code (“California Coastal Act”).

F. At a duly noticed public hearing conducted June 18, 2018, the City Council of the City of Del Mar adopted Resolution 2018-36 certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2007091007) with a Statement of Overriding Consideration for GPA18-001 and The Plan; adopted Ordinance 939 to rescind the Garden Del Mar Specific Plan and adopt the 941 Camino Del Mar Specific Plan (the "Plan"); and adopted Resolution 2018-37 approvingGP18-001 and LCPA18-001 and authoring submittal of LCPA18-001 to the California Coastal Commission for certification.

G. At a duly noticed public hearing conducted August 8, 2018, the City of Del Mar Design Review Board (DRB) adopted Resolution DRB-2018-008, conditionally approving development applications DRB18-008, CDP18-005, and LC18-011 (Entitlements).

H. On September 6, 2018, a timely appeal (Appeal) was filed to the City Council regarding the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Entitlements.

I. On October 1, 2018 the City Council of the City of Del Mar held a duly noticed initial consideration hear of the Appeal, during which two City Council members voted to hear the Appeal as de novo in accordance with procedure enumerated in Chapter 1.12 of the Del Mar Municipal Code.

J. At a duly noticed de novo public hearing conducted October 15, 2018, the City Council of the City of Del Mar adopted Resolution 2018-71, conditionally approving Entitlements associated with the Plan.

K. The Plan and associated GPA18-001 were concurrently submitted for approval to the citizens of Del Mar as Measure “T” at the General Municipal election held on November 6, 2018 and Measure T did pass by a majority vote of the eligible citizenry of the City of Del Mar.

L. Pursuant to requirements of the California Coastal Act, LCPA18-001 was submitted to the California Coastal Commission on December 21, 2018 and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA18-001 was certified by the California Coastal Commission on May 9, 2019.

M. Pursuant to Section 1.5.4 of the Plan and further memorialized as Condition of Approval “S-2” in City Council Resolution 2018-71, the City may utilize and has accordingly prepared, a Development Agreement (Agreement) to memorialize and further vest the rights and benefits in The Plan, including but not limited to, Exceptional Public Benefits and operational requirements.

N. On May 10, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to review the Agreement, and at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard, determined the Agreement was consistent with the City’s General Plan, the Plan, as well as GPA18-001 and LCPA18-001, and provided a recommendation pursuant to Resolution PC-2022-04 that the City Council approve the Agreement.

O. On July 11, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to review the Agreement, and at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard, determined the 20 July 25, 2022 Item 11
3 Agreement was consistent with the City’s General Plan, the Plan, as well as GPA18-001 and LCPA18-001, and introduced Ordinance 2022-XX for approval the Agreement.

The approvals described in these recitals are collectively referred to herein as the "Project" or the "Project Approvals."
P. In exchange for the exceptional benefits to the City described in Article III, including but not limited to the other public benefits that will result from the development of the Project Site, Developer will receive by this Agreement assurance that it may proceed with the Project in accordance with the "Applicable Law" (defined in Section 2.03) and therefore, Developer desires to enter into this Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein contained, City and Developer agree as follows:

AGREEMENT
Article I Description ofProperty, Effective Date and Term.

Section 1.01. Description of Property. The real property which is the subject of this Agreement is Property, as described in the attached DA Exhibit B incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 1.02. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon the date the Ordinance approving this Agreement becomes effective (the "Effective Date") and the City Clerk shall cause the recordation of this Agreement in the Official Records of the County of San Diego no later than ten (10) business days from the Effective Date.

Section 1.03. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and extend ten (10) years thereafter (the "Term").

Article II Standards, Lawsand Procedures Governing the Project.

Section 2.01. Vested Right to Develop. Developer shall have a vested right to develop the Project Site in substantial conformance with the terms and conditions of the Project Approvals, Subsequent Approvals (defined herein) (as and when issued), the Applicable Law (defined below) and amendments as shall, from time to time, be approved pursuant to this Agreement. Specifically, Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Project Site with a mix of retail, restaurant, professional office, and Residential Hospitality uses in accordance with the development policies, regulations and design guidelines set forth in the 941 Camino Del Mar Specific Plan (The Plan), approved Design Review Permit DRB18-008, Coastal Development Permit CDP18-005 and Land Conservation Permit LC18-011 (“Project Approvals”) and associated Project plans date stamped January 20, 2021, and any Subsequent Approvals defined and issued in accordance with Section 4.03 herein.

Section 2.02. Permitted Uses. The permitted uses and the density and intensity of use of the Project Site; the maximum height, bulk and size of the proposed buildings; provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes and the location of public improvements; the general location of public utilities; and other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Project, shall be as set forth in the Specific Plan and Project Approvals and, as and when they are issued 21 July 25, 2022 Item 11
4 (but not in any limitation of any right to develop as set forth in the Project Approvals), any Subsequent Approvals (defined Section 4.03). The Developer agrees and acknowledges that a portion of the Project Site will be required to be used for the provision of deed restricted affordable housing as prescribed in the Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (DA Exhibit C).

Section 2.03. Applicable Law. "Applicable Law" shall mean the existing rules, regulations, official policies, standards and specifications governing permitted uses on the Project Site as set forth in the Specific Plan and applicable Municipal Code regulations, governing density, and governing the design, improvements, the Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (DA Exhibit C), applicable City construction standards and specifications applicable to the Project Site asset forth in this Agreement and the Project Approvals, and in force and effect on the Effective Date. During the Term, to the extent there are any conflicts between the Project Approvals (including but not limited to conditions to any of the Project Approvals) and this Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall govern.

The development of the Project will require Subsequent Approvals from the City. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, and notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2.03, at the time Subsequent Approvals are applied for, the following regulations and provisions shall apply to those Subsequent Approvals:
(a) Processing fees and charges of every kind and nature imposed by the City, including application, inspection, and monitoring fees, which are in force and effect within the jurisdiction of the City for the class of Subsequent Approvals being applied for. (b) All taxes, assessments, impact fees, other fees, or other monetary and non-monetary exactions imposed by the City which are in force and effect within the jurisdiction of the City for a broadly based class of land, projects, discretionary or ministerial approvals, or taxpayers, as applicable, on which they are imposed.
(c) Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals and any other matter of procedure, which are in force and effect within the jurisdiction of the City for the class of City Permits being applied for. (d) Regulations governing construction standards and specifications including, without limitation, the City's building code, plumbing code, mechanical code, electrical code, fire code and grading code, all provisions of Title 23 of the Del Mar Municipal Code, and all other uniform construction codes which are in force and effect within the jurisdiction of the City for the class of Subsequent Approvals in effect at the time of application.

Section 2.04. Moratorium, Initiatives, and Conflicting Enactments. To the extent consistent with state law (and excepting a declaration of a local emergency or state emergency as defined in Government Code section 8558), if any ordinance, resolution or other measure is enacted subsequent to the Effective Date, whether by action of City, by initiative, referendum, or otherwise, that imposes a building moratorium, a limit on the rate of development, or a voter-approval requirement which would otherwise affect the timely development of the Project or Project Approvals on all or any part of the Project Site ("City Law"), City agrees that such ordinance, resolution or other measure shall not apply to the Project Site, this Agreement, the Project Approvals, or the Subsequent Approvals, if any, during the Term. 22 July 25, 2022 Item 11
5 Section 2.05. Life of Project Approvals or Subsequent Approvals. The term of any Project Approval or Subsequent Approval shall automatically be extended for the longer of the Term of this Agreement or the term otherwise applicable to such Project Approval or Subsequent Approval if this Agreement is no longer in effect. The Term of this Agreement, any other Project Approval or Subsequent Approval shall not include any period of time during which any applicable development or utility moratorium, lawsuit or the actions of other public agencies that regulate land use, delays construction of the Project.

Section 2.06. Development Timing. Subject to the Applicable Law, Developer shall diligently pursue construction of the Project on the Project Site and make a good faith effort to complete construction within the timelines mutually agreed to by the Developer and the City. The timing, sequencing, and phasing of the development is solely the responsibility of Developer so long as it is consistent with Applicable Law. In particular, the parties desire to avoid the result of Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Cal.3d 465, where the failure of the parties therein to consider and expressly provide for the timing of the development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development to prevail over such parties' agreement. The parties therefore acknowledge that Developer shall have the right to develop the Project at such time as Developer deems appropriate so long as such development is consistent with Applicable Law.

Section 2.07. Compliance with State and Federal Law. This Agreement is subject to Developer's compliance with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations and compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQA").

Section 2.08. Nexus/Reasonable Relationship Waiver. Developer consents to, and waives any rights it may have now or in the future, to challenge with respect to the Project or Development Approvals, the legal validity of, the conditions, requirements, policies, or programs required by this Agreement, the Development Approval or City Laws, including, without limitation, any claim that they constitute an abuse of police power, violate substantive due process, deny equal protection of the laws, effect a taking of property without payment of just compensation, or impose an unlawful tax. In the event Developer challenges any newer, subsequently enacted, City Law, as specified in Section 2.03, or any increased or new fee permitted under Section 2.03, then City shall have the right to withhold additional development approvals or permits until the matter is resolved; provided, however, Developer shall have the right to make payment or performance under protest, and thereby receive the additional approval or permit while the matter is in dispute.

Article III Developer Obligations.

Section 3.01. Obligations of Developer Generally. The parties acknowledge and agree that the City's agreement to perform and abide by the covenants and obligations of City set forth in this Agreement is a material consideration for Developer's agreement to perform and abide by its long-term covenants and obligations, as set forth herein. The parties acknowledge that many of Developer's long-term obligations set forth in this Agreement are in addition to Developer's agreement to perform all the mitigation measures identified in the Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program associated with the adopted Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2007091007).

Section 3.02. Affordable Housing. As more particularly set forth in the Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (DA Exhibit C), Developer shall 23 July 25, 2022 Item 11
6 construct on site Affordable Units with the required number based on 20 percent of the market rate Residential Hospitality Units, plus one additional affordable housing unit above the required number (2 units total) as follows:
(a) ______ ( ) affordable studio units for sale in an amount affordable to Very Low-Income households, defined as an individual or household whose gross income is 50% or less of the San Diego Countymedian income, adjusted for household size computed pursuant to California Health and Safety Code sections 50079.5 and 50052.5, as may be amended. (b) __2___ (X) affordable one-bedroom units for sale of a size as indicated in the Project plans approved under City Council Resolution No. 2018-71 and subsequently revised by Determination of Substantial Conformance application DSC20-020 decision January 20, 2021, in an amount affordable to Low-Income households, defined as an individual or household whose gross income is 80 percent or less of the San Diego County median income, adjusted for household size computed pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Sections 50079.5 and 50052.5, as may be amended.
(c) The use, qualification of tenants, conditions of tenancy, maintenance and management of the affordable units shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, attached hereto as DA Exhibit C and which shall be recorded with the San Diego County recorder’s office. The affordable units required to be provided under this Section 3.02 shall be sold to the City or to an income Qualified Household in accordance with the terms of the Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants.

No certificate of occupancy for any portion of the Project will be issued until the affordable units have been completed and given certificates of occupancy and a condominium subdivision map has been approved by the City, the California Department of Real Estate, and any other regulatory agency with authority and recorded against the entire Project Site. Furthermore, no certificate of occupancy for any portion of the Project will be issued unless the City has reviewed and approved the Subdivision Public Report Application and the Conditions Covenants & Restrictions prior to submission to the California Department of Real Estate to ensure that the HOA fees to be charged to the affordable units do not result in the units exceeding the affordable housing cost.

Section 3.03. Streetscape Improvements. Any development implemented pursuant to the Specific Plan shall install frontage improvements to implement the Downtown Streetscape design, including, but not limited to, paving, landscaping, lighting elements, infrastructure, and street furniture, in accordance with the City’s adopted Streetscape Project (as defined and approved by City Council Resolution No. 2018-07and 2018-08 and others as applicable) and the 941 Camino Del Mar Specific Plan. In addition to full implementation along the Project’s 10th Street and Camino Del Mar frontages and construction of crosswalk improvements to match the Streetscape design across 10th Street on the east side of and parallel to Camino Del Mar, a contribution shall be made towards the Streetscape Project (such as the crosswalk improvements previously constructed by the City across Camino Del Mar at 10th Street) in the amount of $35,000.00. Such contribution shall be paid within 30 days of recordation of this Agreement. Until such time as this required contribution is provided to the City, no permits shall be issued for construction or demolition at the Property. All Streetscape improvements must be installed to the satisfaction of the City and accepted prior to occupancy.
24 July 25, 2022 Item 11
7 Section 3.04. Shores Master Plan. To assist in the planning and implementation of the future Shores Park Master Plan, a contribution to the City shall be provided in the amount of $50,000.00 to be paid within 30 days of recordation of this Agreement. Until such time as this required contribution is provided to the City, no permits shall be issued for construction or demolition at the Property.

Section 3.05. Safe Railroad Crossing and Coastal Rail Trail. For purposes of completing a safe rail crossing feasibility study (in conjunction with the North County Transit District), a contribution shall be provided to the City in the amount of $25,000.00 to be paid within 30 days of recordation of this Agreement. Until such time as this required contribution is provided to the City, no permits shall be issued for construction or demolition at the Property.

Section 3.06. City Shuttle System. To facilitate the establishment and operation of a City Shuttle (should one be implemented by the City or other entity), a contribution shall be provided to the City in the amount of $2,000 annually or as approved by the City Council consistent with this Section. Initial payment shall be made within 30-days of receiving notice from the City that the City Shuttle System has been established and is operational, and annually thereafter at the start of the City’s fiscal year (July 1). Additionally, the annual contribution shall be increased no more frequently than once every five (5) years, with any such increase capped at the lesser of CPI or six percent.

Section 3.07. Traffic Calming. A contribution in the amount of $12,000.00 within 30-days of recordation of this agreement shall be provided to the City to fund the purchase of two speed limit radar signs for City use to affect traffic calming within the City of Del Mar. Until such time as this required contribution is provided to the City, no permits shall be issued for construction or demolition at the Property.

Section 3.08. Solar Photovoltaic System. Any development implemented pursuant to the Specific Plan shall include an approved solar photovoltaic system to provide for enhanced sustainability and greenhouse gas reduction.

Section 3.09. Public Art. Within 30 days of recordation of this Agreement a contribution in the amount of $15,000.00 shall be provided to the City for purchase of public art. Until such time as this required contribution is provided to the City, no permits shall be issued for construction or demolition at the Property.

Section 3.10. Transient Occupancy Tax. Transient Occupancy Tax shall be provided for any Residential Hospitality Uses (including specifically, those units utilized as short-term rentals but excluding the affordable units), as defined in Section 5.4.10 of the Specific Plan, in accordance with requirements and processes enumerated in Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 3.12.

Section 3.11. Undergrounding Existing Utility Poles. Per the Specific Plan and in accordance with Resolution 2018-71 Condition E-1 and the approved plans, two existing utility poles adjacent to the site, or an equivalent deemed appropriate by the City in agreement with the Developer, shall be undergrounded as part of construction. All proposed utilities within the project shall be installed underground in accordance with current utility engineering practices. The existing poles and aerial utilities (to the project) shall be removed and/or placed underground in accordance with a plan produced by the Developer in consultation with SDG&E and other utility providers to the area, and subject to City approval. At the discretion of the City, the developer will have the option to 25 July 25, 2022 Item 11
8 remit a commensurate monetary contribution to the City for a future undergrounding project involving said poles and aerial utilities in-lieu of performing the physical undergrounding. The poles and aerial utilities must be undergrounded, or in-lieu payment must be made (if found to be acceptable by the City) in order to obtain final project occupancy.

Section 3.12. Sewer Main Relocation. Per the Specific Plan and in accordance with Resolution No. 2018-71 Condition E-1, the development shall construct a new eight-inch sewer main in Camino Del Mar, to relocate the public sewer main into the street right-of-way.

Section 3.13. Parking Fees. Prior to issuance of permits for demolition or construction, the Developer shall submit payment to the City for nine (9) in-lieu parking spaces. The fee for payment shall be based upon the adopted fee schedule in place at the time of building permit issuance, and pursuant to process enumerated in Del Mar Municipal Code Section 30.80.170.

Section 3.14. Compliance with Requirements of Other Governmental Entities. During the Term, Developer, at no cost to City, shall comply with lawful requirements of, and obtain all permits and approvals required by other local, regional, State and Federal agencies having jurisdiction over Developer's activities in furtherance of this Agreement. Developer shall pay all required fees when due to Federal, State, regional, or other local governmental agencies other than the City and acknowledges that City does not control the amount of any such fee.

City shall cooperate with Developer in Developer's effort to obtain permits and approvals from Federal, State, regional, and other local governmental agencies, provided that same does not impose any costs on or require the City to incur any costs without compensation or reimbursement, or require the City to amend any of the City's policies, regulations, or ordinances.

As provided in California Government Code § 65869.5, this Agreement shall not preclude the application to the Property and Project of changes in laws, regulations, plans, or policies, to the extent that such changes are specifically mandated and required by changes in State or Federal laws or regulations. In the event changes in the law prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or regulations. The parties shall meet and confer in good faith in order to determine whether such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with changes in the law, and City and Developer shall agree to such action as may be reasonably required. It is the intent of the parties that any such modification or suspension be limited to that which is necessary and to preserve to the extent possible the original intent of the parties in entering into this Agreement. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the City or Developer from contesting by any available means (including administrative or judicial proceedings) the applicability to the Property or Project of any such State or Federal laws or regulations.

To the extent that any actions of Federal or State agencies (or actions of other governmental agencies, including City, required by Federal or State agencies, or actions of City taken in good faith to prevent adverse impacts upon City by actions of Federal, State or other governmental agencies) have the effect of preventing, delaying, or modifying development of the Property or any portion thereof, City shall not in any manner be liable for any such prevention, delay, or modification. Such actions include, but are not limited to, flood plain or wetlands designations and actions of City or other governmental agencies as a result; the imposition of air quality or 26 July 25, 2022 Item 11
9 transportation measures or sanctions and actions of City or other governmental agencies as a result; or changes to CEQA and actions of City or other governmental agencies as a result. As a condition to being able to proceed with development, Developer may be required, at its cost, to participate in such regional or local programs and to be subject to such development restrictions as may be necessary or appropriate by reason of actions of Federal, State or other governmental agencies (or action of City taken in order to prevent adverse impacts upon City by actions of Federal, State, or other governmental agencies).

Section 3.15. City's Police Power. The parties acknowledge and agree that the limitations, reservations, and exceptions contained in this Agreement are intended to reserve to the City that part of its police power which cannot be limited by contract, and this Agreement shall be construed to reserve to the City that part of its police power which cannot be restricted by contract.

Article IV City Obligations.

Section 4.01. Protection of Vested Rights. To the maximum extent permitted by law, City shall take any and all actions as may be necessary or appropriate to ensure that the vested rights provided by this Agreement can be enjoyed by Developer and to prevent any City Law from invalidating or prevailing over all or any part of this Agreement. City shall cooperate with Developer and shall undertake such actions as may be necessary to ensure this Agreement remains in full force and effect. City shall not support, adopt, or enact any City Law, or take any other action which would violate the express provisions or intent of the Project Approvals or the Subsequent Approvals (defined in Section 4.03).

Section 4.02. Developer's Right to Rebuild. City agrees that Developer may renovate or rebuild the Project Site within the Term of this Agreement should it become necessary due to natural disaster, changes in seismic requirements, or should the buildings located within the Project Site become functionally outdated, within Developer's sole discretion, due to changes in technology. Any such renovation or rebuilding shall be subject to the square footage and height limitations vested by this Agreement, and shall comply with the Project Approvals, the building codes existing at the timeof such rebuilding or reconstruction, and the requirements of CEQA. Developer’s right to rebuild shall be conditioned on complying with the affordable housing obligations set forth in this Agreement and in the Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement. Further, Developer shall be obligated to restore the Streetscape Improvements installed pursuant to Section 3.03 of this Agreement.

Section 4.03. Processing Subsequent Approvals. The development of the Project is subject to future approvals and actions by the City that have not been reviewed or approved by the City prior to the adoption date of this Agreement (“Subsequent Approvals”). These Subsequent Approvals include, but are not limited to, the following: amendments of the Project Approvals, tentative/final subdivision map to create residential and/or commercial portions of the Project, new, additional and/or revised Design Review, Land Conservation or other City-issued permits, improvement agreements, building and grading permits, sewer and water connection permits, and certificates of occupancy. In reviewing and acting on applications for Subsequent Approvals, the City shall apply the Project Approvals and the Existing Land Use Regulations when considering the application and may attach such conditions as necessary to comply with the Project Approvals and Existing Land Use Regulations.
27 July 25, 2022 Item 11
10 Section 4.04. Right-of-Way Dedication for Loading/Unloading.

Subject to approval of an Encroachment Permit by the City Council, and in compliance with the City’s approved Streetscape Plan and Section 6.2.2 of the Plan, a dedicated space for loading and unloading shall be permitted immediately adjacent to the Project within the Camino Del Mar rightof-way. Final design, location, and overall dimensions of the on-street loading space shall be subject to City approval.

Section 4.05. Periodic Review. City and Developer shall review all actions taken pursuant to the terms of this Agreement once annually, within sixty (60) days prior to each anniversary of the Effective Date, during each year of the Term unless the City and Developer agree in writing to conduct the review at another time. Review of compliance with the terms of this Agreement shall be conducted by the Director. Pursuant to Del Mar Municipal Code Section 24.65.190, Developer shall initiate the review by filing an application with the City and provide all the documents and information necessary for the City to complete the annual review and make a determination of whether Developer is in compliance.
(a) Good Faith Compliance. During the Periodic Review, the Director of Planning and Community Development or his/her designee shall review Developer’s good-faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement, including but not limited to the affordable housing requirements and financial obligations set forth in Article III of this Agreement.

At the conclusion of the Periodic Review, the Director of Planning and Community Development shall make written findings and determinations, on the basis of substantial evidence, as to whether Developer has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The decision of the Director of Planning and Community Development may be appealable to the City Council within ten (10) calendar days of a written decision.

If the Director of Planning and Community Development finds and determines that Developer has not complied with such terms and conditions, the Director of Planning and Community Development may recommend to the City Council that it terminate or modify this Agreement by giving notice ofitsintention to do so, in the manner set forth in California Government Code Sections 65867 and 65868. The costs incurred by City in connection with the Periodic Review process described herein shall be shared by Developer and the City.
(b) Failure to Properly Conduct Periodic Review. City’s failure to conduct a periodic review shall not be deemed to be a waiver of right to do so at a later date. (c) Written Notice of Compliance. With respect to any year for which Developer has been determined or deemed to have complied with this Agreement, City shall, within thirty (30) calendar days following request by Developer, provide Developer with a written notice of compliance.

Article V Insurance.

Section 5.01. Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance. At all times that Developer is constructing any improvements that will become public improvements, Developer shall maintain in effect a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance with a per-occurrence combined single limit of not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) and a deductible of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) per claim. The policy so maintained by Developer shall name 28 July 25, 2022 Item 11
11 the City as an additional insured and shall include either a severability of interest clause or crossliability endorsement.

Section 5.02. Workers Compensation Insurance. At all times that Developer is constructing any improvements that will become public improvements, Developer shall maintain Worker's Compensation insurance for all persons employed by Developer for work at the Project site.

Developer shall require each contractor and subcontractor similarly to provide Worker's Compensation insurance for its respective employees. Developer agrees to indemnify the City for any damage resulting from Developer's failure to maintain any such required insurance.

Section 5.03. Evidence of Insurance. Prior to City Council approval of this Agreement, Developer shall furnish City satisfactory evidence of the insurance required in Sections 5.01 and

5.02 and evidence that the carrier will endeavor to give the City at least ten (10) calendar days prior written notice of any cancellation or reduction in coverage of a policy if the reduction results in coverage less than that required by this Agreement. In the event of a reduction (below the limits required in this Agreement) or cancellation in coverage, or change in insurance carriers or policies, Developer shall, prior to such reduction, cancellation or change, provide at least ten (10) calendar days prior written notice to City, regardless of any notification by the applicable insurer. If the City discovers that the policies have been cancelled or reduced below the limits required in this Agreement and no notice has been provided by either insurer or Developer, said failure shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement.

In the event of a reduction (below the limits required by this Agreement) or cancellation in coverage, Developer shall have five (5) calendar days in which to provide evidence of the required coverage during which time all construction work shall cease until such time as the City receives evidence of substitute coverage. If Developer fails to obtain substitute coverage within five (5) calendar days, City may obtain, but is not required to obtain, substitute coverage and charge Developer the cost ofsuch coverage plus an administrative fee equal to ten percent of the premium for said coverage.

Section 5.04. Additional Insureds. If Developer fails to obtain substitute coverage within five (5) calendar days, City may obtain, but is not required to obtain, substitute coverage and charge Developer the cost ofsuch coverage plus an administrative fee equal to ten percent of the premium for said coverage.

Article VI Mortgagee Protections.

Section 6.01. Certain Rights of Cure. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to all liens placed upon the Property or any portion thereof after the date on which this Agreement or a memorandum of this Agreement is recorded, including the lien of any deed of trust or mortgage ("Mortgage"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against all persons and entities, including all deed of trust beneficiaries or mortgagees ("Mortgagees") who acquire title to the Property or any portion thereof by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise.

Section 6.02. Mortgagee Not Obligated. No foreclosing Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Agreement to construct or complete the construction of any improvements allowed 29 July 25, 2022 Item 11
12 or required by this Agreement, or to pay for or guarantee construction or completion thereof. City, upon receipt of a written request from a foreclosing Mortgagee, shall permit the Mortgagee to succeed to the rights and obligations of Developer under this Agreement, provided that all defaults by Developer hereunder that are reasonably susceptible of being cured are cured by the Mortgagee as soon as is reasonably possible. The foreclosing Mortgagee thereafter shall comply with all the provisions of this Agreement.

Section 6.03. Notice of Default to Mortgagee. If City receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to Developer hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, City shall deliver to the Mortgagee concurrently with service thereof to Developer, all notices given to Developer describing all claims by the City that Developer has defaulted hereunder. If City determines that Developer is in noncompliance with this Agreement, City also shall serve notice of noncompliance on the Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereof on Developer. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to Developer to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the condition of default claimed or the areas of noncompliance set forth in City's notice.

Section 6.04. No Supersedure. Nothing in this Article VI shall be deemed to supersede or release a Mortgagee or modify a Mortgagee's obligations under any subdivision improvement agreement or other obligation incurred with respect to the Property outside this Agreement, nor shall any provision of this Article VI constitute an obligation of City to the Mortgagee, except as to the notice requirements of Section 6.03.

Article VII Indemnification.

Section 7.01. Indemnification. Developer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Del Mar and its officers, agents, employees, representatives, and volunteers (collectively, “Indemnitees”) from and against any loss, liability, claim or judgment relating in any manner related to(1) the approval of this Agreement or the Project Approvals; (2) and development or use of the Property under this Agreement or the Project Approvals; and (3) any actions or inactions by the Developer or its contractors subcontractors agents or employees in connection with the construction or improvement of the Property, and the Project including off-site improvements provided, however, that once the City accepts the public improvements, the Developer’s indemnification obligation with respect to those public improvements shall cease. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer shall not be required to indemnify and hold harmless Indemnitees for liability attributable to the active negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnitees, provided such active negligence is determined by agreement between the Parties or by the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction. In instances where an Indemnitee is shown to have been actively negligent and where Indemnitees’ active negligence accounts for only a percentage of the liability involved, the obligation of Developer will be for that entire portion or percentage of liability not attributable to the active negligence of Indemnitees.

Article VIII Miscellaneous.

Section 8.01. Amendment of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended from time to time, in whole or in part, by mutual written consent of the parties hereto or their successors in interest, asfollows:
30 July 25, 2022 Item 11
13 (a) Administrative Agreement Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement which does not substantially affect (i) the Term of this Agreement , (ii) permitted uses ofthe Project Site, (iii) provisions for the reservation or dedication of land, (iv) conditions, terms, restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, (v) the density or intensity of use of the Project Site or the maximum height or size of proposed buildings, or (vi) monetary contributions by Developer, shall not, except to the extent otherwise required by law, require notice or public hearing before the parties may execute an amendment hereto. Such amendment may be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development who shall make the determination in the context of the overallProject.
(b) Amendment Exemptions. No amendment of a Project Approval or Subsequent Approval shall require an amendment to this Agreement. Instead, any such amendment automatically shall be deemed to be incorporated into theProject and vested under this Agreement.
(c) Scope of Amendment. An amendment to this Agreement may properly address new impacts, if any, resulting from the proposed amendment and shall not serve as an opportunity for City to revisit vested rights unrelated to such amendment.

Section 8.02. Cooperation in Event of Legal Challenge. In the event of an administrative, legal or equitable action or other proceeding instituted by any person not a party to this Agreement challenging the validity of this Agreement or any Project Approval or Subsequent Approval, the parties shall cooperate in defending such action or proceeding. Developer shall bear its own costs of defense as the Real Party In Interest in any such action, and Developer shall reimburse City for all costs (including court costs) and attorneys’ fees incurred by City in defense of any such action or other proceedings. In its sole discretion, City may tender its defense of such action to Developer or defend the action itself. Upon a tender of defense to Developer by City, Developer shall defend through counsel approved by City, which approval shall not be unreasonable withheld, and Developer shall bear all attorneys’ fees and costs from the date of tender.

Section 8.03. Defaults. In the event City or Developer defaults under the terms of this Agreement, City or Developer shall have all rights and remedies provided under law.

Section 8.05. California Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with California Law. Any action at law or in equity arising under this Agreement or brought by any Party for the purposes of enforcing, construing, or determining the validity of any provision of this Agreement shall be filed and tried in the County of San Diego, or the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

Section 8.06. Attorneys’ Fees. In any legal action or other proceeding brought by either party to enforce or interpret a provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and any related costs incurred in that proceeding in addition to any other relief to which it is entitled.

Section 8.07. Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement, or the application of any term or provision of this Agreement to a particular situation, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining terms and 31 July 25, 2022 Item 11
14 provisions of this Agreement, or the application of this Agreement to other situations, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by mutual consent of the parties.

Section 8.08. Covenants Running with the Land. All of the provisions contained in this Agreementshall be binding upon the parties and their respective heirs, successors and assigns, representatives, lessees, and all other persons acquiring all or a portion of the Project, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever . All the provisions contained in this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and shall constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to California law including, without limitation, California Civil Code section 1468.

Section 8.09. Assignment of Interests, Rights and Obligations. Developer shall not transfer or assign all or any portion of its interests, rights or obligations under this Agreement, the Project Approvals or subsequent Approvals to third parties prior to completion of construction unless it first obtains the City’s approval of any prospective purchaser, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld. Developer shall ensure that such purchaser can demonstrate to the City it has experience in operating projects of relatable scope to the Project, and that the purchaser does not have a record of substantial loan defaults, maintenance problems, building code violations, or substantiated fair housing or other complaints at properties it owns and/or operates. Within 30 days of receiving notice of the sale and information regarding the prospective purchaser, the City shall exercise its right to approve or disapprove the prospective purchaser. Sale of individual market rate units or commercial units shall not require City review and approval. Developer may transfer or assign all or any portion of its interests, rights or obligations under this Agreement, the Project Approvals or subsequent Approvals to third parties after completion of construction without City review and approval.

Upon the express written assumption by the Assignee of Developer's rights and interests under this Agreement (the "Assignment Agreement"), Developer shall be free from any and all liabilities accruing on or after the date of assignment with respect to those obligations assumed by the Assignee pursuant to the Assignment Agreement, except to the extent that Developer is in default with respect to any and all obligations at the time of the proposed transfer.

Section 8.10. Notices. Any notice or communication required hereunder between City and Developermust be inwriting, andmay be given either personally, by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested), or by Federal or other similar courier promising overnight delivery to the respective addresses specified by each party. Any party hereto may at any time, by giving ten (10) calendar days written notice to the other party hereto, designate any other address in substitution of the address to which such notice or communication shall be given.

Such notices or communications shall be given to the parties at their addresses set forth below:

If to City, to: City of Del Mar City Hall
1050 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Attn: City Manager
Telephone: (858) 755-9313
32 July 25, 2022 Item 11
15 With Copies to: Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
Devaney Pate Morris & Cameron LLP
402 W. Broadway, Suite 1300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 354-5030
If to Developer, to: DM Asset Recovery LP
c/o Kitchell Development Company
Attn. Robert Schramm, President
1707 E. Highland Ave, Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85016
With Copies To: DM Asset Recovery LP
c/o Kitchell Development Company
Attn.: Michael Seiber
9330 Scranton Road, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92121
Section 8.11. Exhibits. The following exhibits are attached to this Agreement and incorporated herein for all purposes:

DA EXHIBIT A Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter 24.65
DA EXHIBIT B Legal Description of Property
DA EXHIBIT C Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants
Section 8.12. Entire Agreement, Counterparts and Exhibits. This Agreement is executed in two (2) duplicate counterparts, each of which is deemed to be an original. This Agreement consists of 18 pages and 4 exhibits which constitute in full, the final and exclusive understanding and agreement of the parties and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements of the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of City and the Developer.

Section 8.13. Recordation of Development Agreement. Pursuant to California Government Code section 65868.5, no later than ten (10) calendardays afterCity enters into this Agreement, the City Clerk shall record an executed copy of this Agreement in the Official Records ofthe County of SanDiego.
[Signature Page Follows.]
33 July 25, 2022 Item 11
16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by and between Developer and City as of the day and year first above written.

Dated: “CITY”

CITY OF DEL MAR,
a municipal corporation
By:

Dated: Approved as to from:

By:

Dated: “DEVELOPER”
DM Asset Recovery LP
By:

Name:

Title:
34 July 25, 2022 Item 11
17 STATE OF )
) ss.

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

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

My commission expires on
35 July 25, 2022 Item 11
18 STATE OF_________________________)
) ss.

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

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

My commission expires on
36 July 25, 2022 Item 11

DA EXHIBIT A
Del Mar, California, Municipal Code