Agenda, first session — Del Mar City Council, July 25, 2022

Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda

VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
July 25, 2022 City Council Meeting

INFORMATION RECEIVED

AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA

WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)
1 Melinda Gould
Subject: FW: Red dot in regard to the Ziskin property build >>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Susie Macnamara <[email protected]>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 2:33 PM
>>>> To: City Clerk Mail Box <[email protected]>
>>>> Subject: Red dot in regard to the Ziskin property build >>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My name is Susie MacNamara. My address is 623 Hoska Drive. My home is located to the north of the Ziskin property. I have lived in Del Mar since 1974, and at this location since 1978. >>>>
>>>> The result of the last hearing, was to site the new house to the north in order to protect the neighbors to the east.

This new suggestion would not only negatively impact me, but it would significantly affect the Paa family, and the Spadafora family. It seems obvious that moving the house to the north would disrupt the most neighbors and the most properties.
>>>>
>>>> I would ask that you turn this suggestion down, and support the original architectural plan. >>>>
>>>> It is interesting to me that the two Councilwomen who voted against the current plan, or to be specific, supported the continuation of this item, never spoke to any of us, nor visited the site, except from the street. And yet, all of this was to change the location of the house, impact 3 other properties, and protect a neighbor’s view that is not a primary view! This makes no sense at all.
>>>>
>>>> It is amazing to me that this case is so prolonged. It should have been over months ago. I can only imagine the internal dynamics that could explain it.
>>>>
>>>> Please let the Ziskin’s build their lovely design. They have overwhelming support from their 8th street neighbors, and the community as well - a fact that was summarily dismissed at the last meeting. >>>>
>>>> I will hope that your decision will be impartial. There are no more reasons to delay this project. >>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> Susie MacNamara
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>
>
1 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
Subject: FW: Red Dot Letter: Agenda Item on 7/25/22 at 4:30 (applicant Ziskin) 624 8th St -----Original Message-----
From: W. S. <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 4:31 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box <[email protected]>
Subject: Red Dot Letter: Agenda Item on 7/25/22 at 4:30 (applicant Ziskin) 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.

Red Dot Letter submitted via email
Reference: De novo hearing of City County to consider permit applications DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 set for 7/25/22 at 4:30 pm (continued from 5/2/22)
Applicants: Matthew and Chelsea Ziskin
Appellants: Nigel Hook and Janet Wilson
Location: 624 8th Street (APN: 00-252-14-00)
Dear Council Members:

We have lived at 611 Hoska Drive for 26 years. Our home is located in back of the proposed Ziskin house, kitty-corner from it to the northwest. I understand that the Ziskin’s project was approved by the DRB, but that there now is an appeal that includes the issues of whether the home should be set back further on the lot, and whether it should be less concentrated on the east.

We had greatly appreciated the Ziskin’s efforts to protect our and other neighbors’ privacy by locating their new home at the front of their lot, close to 8th Street. The second story of their new home with its deck will have views into our backyard and directly into our master bedroom, which has a big picture window on the south side. Any movement of the house further back (north) on the lot, or any massing of it further west on the lot, would involve a greater invasion of our privacy. Thus, we ask that the DRB’s approval be upheld.

Thank you for considering our interests.

Wynne & Paul Spadafora
Sent from my iPad
1 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
Subject: FW: Invitation for Site Visit DRB21-018|LC21-008|CDP21-012 - Janet Wilson & Nigel Hook
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Date: July 21, 2022 at 6:46:12 PM PDT
To: Dwight Worden <[email protected]>, Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>, Dan Quirk <[email protected]>, Tracy Martinez <[email protected]>, David Druker <[email protected]> Cc: Nigel Hook <[email protected]>, Sarah Krietor <[email protected]>, Jennifer Gavin <[email protected]> Subject: Invitation for Site Visit DRB21-018|LC21-008|CDP21-012 - Janet Wilson & Nigel Hook 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 Worden and City Councilmembers,
Nigel and I would like to invite you into our backyard and onto our entertainment deck (which is easily accessible from 8th Street) in preparation for the upcoming meeting regarding application DRB21-018|LC21-008|CDP21-012.

No appointment necessary. You know the DROs and are capable of assessing the merits of the project without us hovering. The gazebo gate will be ajar, so please come right up onto the deck (no worries, our dog Stellar will be kept inside). Also, we would like to suggest walking the neighborhood (8th Street, 8th Street Extension, and Hoska Drive) with fresh eyes to assess neighborhood compatibility.

As you know, Nigel and I contest the 2nd story. Not because it is a two-story, but because of this small lot, a two-story can't help but to create incompatibilities with Del Mar's DROs ... bulk and mass, siting, looming, vertical massing, impact to neighboring properties, the list goes on.

What you may not know is that
Nigel and I have offered mediation which has been rejected and/or ignored.

Nigel and I have offered to help to fund a basement which would not only double livable space, it may (and most likely) would eliminate all of these DRO concerns.

Our community relies on DRO and, until the rules and regulations are changed, people must be able to rely on the current rules. Citizens of Del Mar must be treated fairly and equally and they expect that development projects will be consistent with our established community plan. Our DRB, Planning Commission, and City Council are relied upon to stand up for the citizens of Del Mar.

And now we see in the package that the Paa family has expressed concerns. "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."
and
1 July 25, 2022 Item 10
2 "Even before these revisions, we were concerned about the privacy of our entryway and east side of our property."
The Paa family is (and has been) uncomfortable. Hardly a surprise. Many neighbors are hesitant to make waves.

For every person willing to go on record, there are more who are intimidated and/or simply unwilling to do so.

I shudder when I think about how many people such a huge deck would support.

I'm concerned for all of the nearby western neighbor(s) because there surely will be a lot of activity generating a lot of sound (and elevated up to 13'). I've learned that designers recommend at least 15 sq. ft. per person to be comfortable. This proposed deck would easily host 30+ people!
Ironic is a difficult word to use properly, but this might just be a perfect example. Keep in mind that the existing single story is slightly more than 2,000 sq. ft.

And "more space" has been stated [repeatedly] as a reason for this new 2,000 sq. ft. house of which 1,600 is livable (400 sq. ft. garage). However, the real living area will be less than 1,600 sq. ft. because stairs and landings are required in a two-story. This means 70-100 sq. ft. would be dedicated to stairs (depending on ceiling height). The real living area will be closer to 1,500 sq. ft. which is 20-25% less than the existing single story.

Isn't this ironic? On one hand, "more space" is needed, but on the other hand, the only choice being considered has to be a 20-25% less space, smaller two-story.

Obviously it isn't up to us (or the city) to judge how much space a family is willing to live in. It is up to us to embrace our Community Plan, the well-established DROs, and the recent DRB Guidelines to ensure bad precedents resulting in disorderly development are not set.

Please to stop over and re-acquaint yourselves with our neighborhood. The story poles at 624 8th Street have changed and per the staff report:
"Council is now asked to determine if sufficient modifications have been made based on the feedback provided by the City Council at the May 2, 2022, public hearing." Sincerely,
Janet Wilson 619.733.1428
Nigel Hook 619.977.3000
635 Hoska Dr.

Del Mar, CA 92014
2 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
July 21, 2022
VIA EMAIL ONLY – [email protected]
Christina Cameron

DEVANEY PATE MORRIS & CAMERON LLP
402 West Broadway, Suite 1300
San Diego CA 92101-3504
Re: Wilson & Hook/Ziskin
DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012
Chris:

Following up on our conversation yesterday regarding the consequences of tie vote in a de novo hearing before the City Council, attached is an email Ms. Wilson received from Sarah Krietor taking the position that a tie vote results in no action and a reversion to the DRB decision. I disagree with this analysis. It is my view that a tie vote results in no action and neither an approval nor disapproval of the application. The previous decision of the DRB has no effect whatsoever. So that this letter may also be included in the administrative record in the event of any future litigation, I am also sending a copy of this to Ms. Krietor as a red dot in connection with the upcoming July 25, 2022, hearing.

The analysis begins with Del Mar Municipal Code (“DMMC”) Chapter 1.12 governing appeals from “final, nonrecommending determination[s] made at an administrative or public hearing by a board, committee, commission or department subordinate to the City Council. (DMMC 1.12.010). An appeal of such a determination then comes before the City Council for “initial consideration” whether to set the matter for hearing. (DMMC 1.12.040(A)). The decision of the subordinate authority is affirmed unless two or more members of the City Council vote to hear the matter. (DMMC 1.12.040(B)). If the matter is set for hearing, the determination of the subordinate authority is deemed “advisory only.” (DMMC 1.12.050(A)). A matter approved for hearing comes before the City Council as a public hearing or administrative hearing “depending on how the subordinate authority was required to consider the matter.” (DMMC 1.12.050(B)).

The City Council considers the “application” (meaning the application from which the appeal was taken). (DMMC 1.12.060(A)). “By resolution prepared by the appropriate City Department, the City Council shall make a final determination on the application.” (DMMC

1.12.060(B) (emphasis added)).

On July 12, 2021, by Resolution 2021-40, the City Council adopted Policy No. 319 to its City Council Policy Book which sought to clarify the “procedures for development-related 1 July 25, 2022 Item 10
Christina Cameron

DEVANEY PATE MORRIS & CAMERON LLP
July 21, 2022

Page 2 of 3 ends

applications.” That policy provides, “Public hearings conducted by the City Council on land use and development related applications/matters forwarded to the City Council by the Planning Commission or Design Review Board for decision, including de novo hearings, shall be performed in accordance with the procedures specified in the adopted Policy Manual of the subordinate decision-making body.” (City of Del Mar, City Council Policy Book, Policy No. 319) (emphasis added)).

The DRB Policy Manual provides that, “The DRB’s findings and conclusions shall be contained in a Resolution adopted by a majority of the DRB quorum present at the meeting.” (DRB Policy Manual 8.2.B.2.b.(3) (emphasis added)). The manual further provides that, “Whenever the DRB determines that it is unable to take action on an Application after two or more tie votes, the staff shall place the Application on the next available Agenda of the City Council for action, not as an appeal.” (DRB Policy Manual 8.2.B.2.b.(4)).

Based on the foregoing provisions of the DMMC, City Council Policy, and the DRB Policy Manual, it is clear that upon an appeal from a decision of the DRB, the City Council acts on the application de novo subject to the same procedures which would apply to any action before the DRB. Accordingly, the approval of an application in a de novo hearing would require a majority vote. (DRB Policy Manual 8.2.B.2.b.(3)). There is nothing in the DMMC, City Council Policy, or the DRB Manual which would support the conclusion that a tie vote in a de novo hearing before the City Council would result in a “reversion” to the decision previously made by the DRB.

This interpretation is consistent with case law on this subject. “[A]s a general rule an even division among members of an administrative agency results in no action.” (Graves v.

Commission on Professional Competence (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 970, 976-977. This principle was applied in a case similar to this case where it was held that a city council’s tie vote did not affirm the underlying decision of a planning commission. (Anderson v. Pittenger (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 188, 194-195 (on appeal from planning commission’s decision to grant a zoning variance, city council’s tie vote constituted “no action” and “was not an affirmance of the order of the commission”)). In finding that a tie vote was “no action, and it was not an affirmance of the order of the commission,” the court in Anderson noted, as is required in this case, that, “The council was required by ordinance to conduct a public hearing upon the application, after publishing notice. After the appeal was taken, the function of the council was not merely to review the proceedings before the commission and affirm, reverse, or modify the order of the commission. It was required by the ordinance to act upon the appeal . . .” (Ibid.) 2 July 25, 2022 Item 10
Christina Cameron

DEVANEY PATE MORRIS & CAMERON LLP
July 21, 2022

Page 3 of 3 ends

Similarly, in this case, the City Council is required to act upon the appeal by a “final determination on the merits.” (DMMC 1.12.060(B) (emphasis added)). In so acting, it operates under the same rules as would apply to consideration of the application before the DRB.

Before the DRB, a majority vote is required to approve an application. As it would before the DRB, a tie vote before the City Council results in no action, not an approval of the decision previously made by the DRB.

Very truly yours,
/s/ Richard R. Rice
Richard R. Rice
Enclosure
cc: Clients
Sarah Krietor (via email only [email protected])
3 July 25, 2022 Item 10
Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 07:20:09 Pacific Daylight Time ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Sarah Krietor <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 at 09:54
Subject: RE: DRB21-018 - ClarificaLon about next steps with City Council To: janet silverhook.com <[email protected]>
Cc: MaS Bator <[email protected]>, nigel silverhook.com <[email protected]>, Jennifer Gavin <[email protected]>
Hi Janet, The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed your email below and has provided the following response to clarify the effect of a tie vote by the Council on the appeal of the DRB action:

1. The City Council is acLng on this maSer as an appeal. They have not stepped into the shoes of the DRB but are acLng as the City Council which is the appeal body. However, the City’s Design Review Ordinance is the legal framework for their decision.

2. The City Council is conducLng a “de novo” hearing which means their review is not confined to the issues raised by the appeal but they can consider the applicaLon in total. The DRB decision is considered advisory only. (DMMC secLon 1.12.050(A).

3. A majority vote of the City Council is required for the Council to take acLon on the applicaLon (3 votes). (Government Code 36936) A moLon which results in a Le means the Council has failed to take acLon on the applicaLon. It has not denied the project, approved the project or conLnued the project. The Council must take an acLon on the appeal/applicaLon. If it fails to pass a moLon with 3 votes, no acLon will have been taken on the appeal/applicaLon and the DRB decision will be the final acLon on the project.

Thank you,
Sarah
4 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Brooke Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2022 5:13 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: July 25 Hearing / DRB21-018 / Item 10
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 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 July 25th, 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 their outdoor entertainment areas. 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 and height provides considerable information for prospective homebuyers when making that determination. 624 8th Street creates an alarming precedent because of the negative impact of a NEW 2-story structure attempting to secure a view they did not originally have--at the expense of BOTH neighbors existing outdoor areas. 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. The residents to the East of 624 have enjoyed ocean views for 20 years. 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? 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 outdoor life, for thousands of Del Mar residents.

The project is specifically in violation of at least two 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 1 July 25, 2022 Item 10
2 development locates structures so as to unreasonably, adversely impact upon outdoor areas on adjacent properties."
Moreover, the changes made do not resolve any of the concerns identified by the last staff report or City Council, so it is not clear why those issues are no longer identified in the latest staff report? Over the course of this project review, the DRB, the City Council, and The Planning Department have expressed concerns related to neighborhood scale, neighborhood compatibility, and the impact on adjacent properties. I have yet to receive any updates that lead me to conclude that these concerns have been materially addressed. They certainly have not been rectified or remediated.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you. ~Brooke Garcia 2 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: W. S. <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2022 2:18 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Re: Red Dot Letter: Agenda Item on 7/25/22 at 4:30 (applicant Ziskin) 624 8th St 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 wanted to make clear that we have no objection to upholding the DRB approval of the Ziskin’s new home design.

Thank you.

Wynne & Paul Spadafora
Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 17, 2022, at 4:30 PM, W. S. <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Red Dot Letter submitted via email
>
> Reference: De novo hearing of City County to consider permit applications DRB21-018, LC21-008, and CDP21-012 set for 7/25/22 at 4:30 pm (continued from 5/2/22)
> Applicants: Matthew and Chelsea Ziskin
> Appellants: Nigel Hook and Janet Wilson
> Location: 624 8th Street (APN: 00-252-14-00)
>
> Dear Council Members:
>
> We have lived at 611 Hoska Drive for 26 years. Our home is located in back of the proposed Ziskin house, kitty-corner from it to the northwest. I understand that the Ziskin’s project was approved by the DRB, but that there now is an appeal that includes the issues of whether the home should be set back further on the lot, and whether it should be less concentrated on the east.
>
> We had greatly appreciated the Ziskin’s efforts to protect our and other neighbors’ privacy by locating their new home at the front of their lot, close to 8th Street. The second story of their new home with its deck will have views into our backyard and directly into our master bedroom, which has a big picture window on the south side. Any movement of the house further back (north) on the lot, or any massing of it further west on the lot, would involve a greater invasion of our privacy. Thus, we ask that the DRB’s approval be upheld. >
> Thank you for considering our interests.
>
> Wynne & Paul Spadafora
>
3 July 25, 2022 Item 10
2 > Sent from my iPad
4 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Michael Urkov <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2022 8:53 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: DRB21-018, LC21-008, CDP21-012
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 in opposition to the proposed project at 624 8th St, Del Mar. I have lived at 641 Hoska Dr for the past 5 years. The home was completely remodeled with the yard designed for outdoor living. We enjoy an ocean view that would be almost completely removed by the rebuild. Change is inevitable, but preserving the character of this lovely neighborhood should be the major consideration. We join with properties to the east hoping our concerns will be heard. Respectfully yours, George Henning, Michael Urkov (residents at 641 Hoska Dr, Del Mar 5 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
Subject: FW: Invitation for Site Visit DRB21-018|LC21-008|CDP21-012 - Janet Wilson & Nigel Hook
From: Janet Wilson <[email protected]>
Date: July 22, 2022 at 8:20:11 AM PDT
To: Dwight Worden <[email protected]>, Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>, Dan Quirk <[email protected]>, Tracy Martinez <[email protected]>, David Druker <[email protected]> Cc: Nigel Hook <[email protected]>, Sarah Krietor <[email protected]>, Jennifer Gavin <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Invitation for Site Visit DRB21-018|LC21-008|CDP21-012 - Janet Wilson & Nigel Hook 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.

Apologies for a 2nd email, but I realized this morning that my previous email contained an error and accuracy counts.

These figures "20-25%" should be corrected to be "5-7%".

Adjusted and highlighted below.

On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 at 18:45, Janet Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:

What you may not know is that
Nigel and I have offered mediation which has been rejected and/or ignored.

Nigel and I have offered to help to fund a basement which would not only double livable space, it may (and most likely) would eliminate all of these DRO concerns.

And now we see in the package that the Paa family has expressed concerns. 6 July 25, 2022 Item 10
2 "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."
and
"Even before these revisions, we were concerned about the privacy of our entryway and east side of our property."
The Paa family is (and has been) uncomfortable. Hardly a surprise. Many neighbors are hesitant to make waves.

For every person willing to go on record, there are more who are intimidated and/or simply unwilling to do so.

I shudder when I think about how many people such a huge deck would support.

Isn't this ironic? On one hand, "more space" is needed, but on the other hand, the only choice being considered has to be a 5-7% less space, smaller two-story.

Del Mar, CA 92014
7 July 25, 2022 Item 10
July24,2022
DearCouncilmembers,
IamwriঞnginsupportofDelMar’sCommunityPlan,theDesignReviewOrdinances,andthe DesignGuidelines.

Asyouallknow,forover30yearsIhavebeenanarchitectinDelMarandI’vesatonthe DesignReviewBoard.I’vebeenmonitoringthisproject,DRB18-021,sincethebeginningand verylilehaschangedsincetheiniঞalDRBmeeঞng.It’sdifficulttoknowwheretostart.The majorityofconcernscitedduringthefirstDRBreviewsঞllexistandspecificallytheguidance providedduringthelastCityCouncilreviewhasnotbeentakenintoaccount.

Design-Theeasternwallisproblemaঞc.

Thislastiteraঞonhasremovedallofthearঞculaঞonresulঞnginaflatwallwithout arঞculaঞonandwithunreasonableverঞcalmassingfacingtheWilson-Hookproperty.

Becausethesecondstoryisnowflushwiththefirststory,alooming,flat,unarঞculatedwall ispresentedandthisisaworsedesignthanyoulastsaw.PleaseseethearchitecturalSecঞon AonsheetA6(inred)ascomparedtothetwoeastelevaঞons.

Landscaping-Hedgesareneverapermanentdesignsoluঞonformaskingunaracঞve, two-storywalls.Asyouknowhedgescomeandgobecausetheyaremaintainedatthe discreঞonoftheownersand/orthemercyofthenextowner,andtheycanbeseverely impactedbydrought.

Fill–Isfilltheonlysoluঞonforpossibledrainageissues?
Haveallavenuesbeenexploredwithcivilengineers?Therearepotenঞalmethodsavailable whichdonotrequirethearঞficialraisingofthelotwithtwoaddiঞonalfeet.

LocalCoastalPermit–
Twofeetoffillwouldraisetheproposedtwo-storystructureto26feet.Themaxallowedby theDROs.Thischangeinelevaঞonrequirestheaddiঞonof499CYoffilltothesite,thus requiringanLCP.Isthisreallynecessary?
Thankyou,
DeanMeredith
1 July 25, 2022 Item 10
May 2, 2022 – Articulation on eastern wall
July 25, 2022 – Flat, unarticulated eastern wall
2 July 25, 2022 Item 10
These diagrams compare articulation.

May, 2022 (top) to
July 2022 (bottom)
July shows the Bi-Fold doors running the length.

………………………………………………………………………...

July 25, 2022 - Section A shows the flat eastern wall with no articulation and the wall of Bi-Fold Windows. 3 July 25, 2022 Item 10
4 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Photo for City Council remarks
From: Amy Paa-Rogers <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2022 12:28 PM
To: Jennifer Gavin <[email protected]>
Cc: Arline Paa <[email protected]>
Subject: Photo for City Council remarks
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,
I am Arline and David Paa’s daughter, and I am planning on addressing the City Council during the comment portion of the De Novo Hearing on Monday, July 25, 2022.

It was brought to my attention that I could include photos that I would like to reference during the meeting, and that I should share the photos with you ahead of time.

The first photo was take earlier this year from the Ziskin’s roof (with their permission) looking down onto my parent’s front entryway, at 612 8th St. This is from the vantage point of the proposed rooftop deck, looking west.

The second photo is a rendering of the proposed house, and the property line between my parent’s house and the Ziskin’s. (I may or may not reference this photo, still working on my remarks) Please let me know if there is anything else you need from me. Looking forward to seeing you Monday.

Amy
P.S. Here is my phone number in case you may need it. 303.883.6826 Sent from my iPhone
1 July 25, 2022 Item 10
2 July 25, 2022 Item 10
3 July 25, 2022 Item 10
July 25, 2022
Dear Members of the Del Mar City Council:

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 – 40 years now! – and have lived at our current address of 667 Hoska Dr since 1999. Our property stretches between 8th St. and Hoska Dr. and sits directly to the east and above the Wilson/Hook property.

One of the few oceans views accessible to Janet and Nigel is towards the southwest from the corner of their living room, a limited view corridor that will be largely blocked by the proposed new structure at 624 8th St.

In your prior hearing on May 2, 2022, the important issue of the bulk and mass of the proposed structure was discussed, and whether it would be consistent 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.” In its wisdom, the City Council voted on May 2nd “to continue the item to a future hearing in order to give the applicant time to seek modifications to the design.” Now, the proposed structure is back for consideration again, largely unchanged in terms of its bulk and mass. The significant design change appears to be a move of the structure several feet towards the west. This fails to satisfy the valid concerns raised by Wilson/Hook and, in addition, has greater negative impacts for other neighbors to the west and north.

How disappointing, and what a missed opportunity for a significant re-imagining of the project at 624 8th St. At a moment when the applicants might have considered a partial undergrounding of the structure, or proposed a split-level home that would add beauty to the neighborhood, they have made the absolute minimal changes conceivable to the structure and now seek approval.

The Del Mar Community Plan is intended to preserve and improve the City of Del Mar as a beautiful, pleasant, residential community. We encourage the City Council to act accordingly and send this project back to the applicants for further redesign to reduce the bulk and mass of their project in a way which will minimize the negative impacts for all owners of adjacent properties.

Thank you, Dan and Nancy Donoghue
667 Hoska Dr.

Del Mar, CA 92014
1 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Barb Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 10:45 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Ziskin Property
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.

Members of the City Council,
I am requesting that you uphold the Design Review Board, Planning Commision and Staff decision on the Ziskin plans.

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.

Barb Davis
1 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Kerridge, Carol <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:12 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Item #10 De Novo hearing
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 Mayor Worden and City Council members,
It has come to my attention that a proposed remodel project on 8th St may affect the privacy and quality of life for residents who have lived peacefully and quietly as kind and generous neighbors for the last 28 years in their current home.

I also live in the R 1-10 zone (mostly single-family homes) of our City where our lots are smaller, our homes too are smaller, and are placed in nearer proximity than in many other residential neighborhoods in Del Mar. We take pride in recognizing and honoring each other's privacy and quality of life.

As you review this item, please consider that Arline and David Paa (neighbors to the west of the proposed remodel) have been pillars of our community and especially their neighborhood and deserve to continue living their Golden Years in the peaceful, private, warm and friendly manor they have helped to create with their neighbors.

Thank you for your consideration,
Carol Kerridge
a friend and neighbor on El Amigo
1 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Kelly Welch <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:33 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.

To Whom it May Concern
I am writing to you in support of the Siskin’s home plan.

It is very discouraging to be aware of the bullying that is happening regarding the Siskin’s project because of someone having influence over the outcome.

The DRB approved their plan. Why is their approval discarded and overruled because their neighbor has both the influence and funds to pursue this to the point of wearing the Siskins down to where they can’t afford to fight any longer??
This decision is supposed to be about the house, and the house alone…..not about the people in it. That is how the DRB looked at it and approved it. The neighbors do not like the fact that the Siskins have four young boys, and that seems to be why they are fighting the Siskins proposal. Is that fair? No.

The Siskin’s home would be a huge improvement to the neighborhood. Please approve this and base your decision solely on the home and not on the people in it.

Thankyou,
Pat and Kelly Welch
1 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Sarah Iantosca White <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 12:05 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.

Hello, I am writing a quick email in support of our neighbors at 624 8th street. They are a lovely family with four young boys looking to expand their house into a forever home. Please consider supporting their project.

Sincerely
Sarah White
563 Orchid lane Del Mar
Sent from my iPhone
1 July 25, 2022 Item 10

CITY COUNCL AGENDA QUESTIONS
JULY 25, 2022
Item 10: Continuation of De Novo Public Hearing Appeal of Design Review Permit DRB21-018/Land Conservation Permit LC21-008/Coastal Development Permit CDP21-012

1. Where can the landscape plan be accessed for review? It does not seem to be in the packet. The project seems to have hedges on the west, north, and east borders.

Sheet L2 of the plans (page 17)

2. Will the tree removal indicated in one of the responses be required? Could these trees be replanted in the future or does the layout of the landscape plan preclude that? The applicant has proposed removal of most of the trees in the front yard and indicated that three trees would be replanted (Ngaio Tree, Lemon tree, Lime tree). Desire or ability to retain/replant any of these trees would be a question for the applicant. The City is not requiring the removal of any of these trees at this time.

3. Will covenants or restrictions of some sort be recorded to require minimum or maximum heights of any of the hedges or other landscape features? If not, can the neighbors rely permanently on the landscape plan to protect their privacy or open space? The DRB did not require any such covenants and covenants for landscaping are not currently suggested as a condition of approval. If the City Council feels that a covenant would be appropriate or necessary to ensure the long-term retention certain vegetation, that can be required.

4. Under what conditions can the west hedge be removed, reduced, or thinned in the future?
Landscape is not regulated by the City after final inspection of a project unless a covenant is otherwise put into place. Modification of the west hedge, without restrictions set forth through a covenant, could take place after final inspection and occupancy.

5. How long does the landscape plan remain in effect? If current or future owners of 624 8th St decide to remove or significantly reduce the west hedge, for example, to improve views or sunlight, can they simply remove the hedge and not replace it? DRB or City Council approved Landscape Plans are not regulated after final inspection of a project beyond what is provided otherwise in the DMMC.

6. What guarantees the height of the west hedge? How long will it take for the hedge to reach a height that mitigates privacy?
The hedge is living plant material so its height and growth rate cannot be guaranteed; we can only rely on typical growth rates and patterns.

July 25, 2022 Item 10

CITY COUNCL AGENDA QUESTIONS
JULY 25, 2022

7. What is the current lot coverage? What is the lot coverage of the proposed project? What is the allowed lot coverage?
According to the Title Page of the plans- the applicant is saying the existing lot coverage is 36%; proposed 28%. Allowed is 40% or 3,000 sf (whichever is greater)

8. What is the east-west width of the 2nd floor deck from the house to the railing? From one of the responses it looks about 17 feet wide.

See response below after question 9.

9. What is the north-south width of the 2nd floor deck? Questions 8-9: The deck is approximately 17’ 5” from inside deck planter to wall of second story east-west; a portion along the south is approximately 23’ 4” east-west; and approximately 28’ 6” from inside planter wall to BBQ counter north-south. (Visual Below) July 25, 2022 Item 10

CITY COUNCL AGENDA QUESTIONS
JULY 25, 2022

10. Were the view-lines presented to the DRB by the architect in the December 2021 or February 2022 hearings? Can this be reviewed again for the DRB members in the July 25, 2022, hearing? These angles, the height of the hedge, and the ability to rely on the hedge’s maintenance seem to be a mitigation that was considered important during DRB discussion.

This exhibit was provided to Council on page 359 of the current staff report and was included in the previous May 2, 2022 staff report.

Below is a screenshot showing viewlines from one of the responses in the packet. Who prepared this? Can neighbors rely on it?
July 25, 2022 Item 10

CITY COUNCL AGENDA QUESTIONS
JULY 25, 2022
This exhibit was provided by the applicant as red dot correspondence to the DRB and is providing information for decision maker consideration. Staff does not have the resources to verify the accuracy of such exhibits.

Here is a photo from the property to the west taken July 23, 2022:

10. What are the changes made to the plans in the new submission? My understanding from the architect’s letter is that the only change was shifting the house 2 feet to the west. Was the second story deck reduced in its east-west width? That is correct, the structure has shifted from the eastern property line two feet. Second story deck has not been reduced in size. Please note that staff has recommended a condition of approval that would require the applicant to provide an additional two-foot setback to the useable deck space on the west so that the deck is no closer to the western neighbor than the plans presented to Council at the May 2 Council hearing (15’ 5 ½” setback from western property line).

11. Was the house shifted to the north? Neighbors to the north seem to have the perception that it was shifted 10 feet north.

July 25, 2022 Item 10

CITY COUNCL AGENDA QUESTIONS
JULY 25, 2022
No, the north and south setbacks remain the same.

12. Since the project is being reviewed de novo under DRB rules, is continuation an option on July 25, 2022?
The Council is acting on this application as an appeal. An additional continuance may be made upon concurrence by the Applicant.

13. Exhibit D (attachment A) – This sketch appears to be an inaccurate depiction of the impact of privacy on the west property residents. I visited residence and based on my observations, privacy to the west property would be negatively impacted and would not be possible even with the proposed hedge. Has the planning staff validated this rendering?
Below is the photo I took from the west side residents front door.

July 25, 2022 Item 10

14.Architect Brian Church noted in his letter that he moved the house 24”to the west by narrowing the second level. What is the set back on the west side of the property in the revised plans? Has it been changed from the previous submitted plans? The proposed west side yard setback is 2’ closer to the structure than the previous set of plans (Previous: 12’ 10” Current: 10’ 10”)

15.Did staff consider the impact of interior lighting on the west residence since the west facing walls are mostly glass? Was the noise impact assessed since the sliding glass doors are retractable and facing the west residence with minimal setback?
Based on prior lack of concern from the neighbor to the west staff did not raise concern related to light trespass since there was mitigating factors such as distance from the property line and landscape to screen such impacts.

16.Has there been a prior development approval where nearly the entire outdoor decking spans the length of an adjacent property?
July 25, 2022 Item 10

CITY COUNCL AGENDA QUESTIONS
JULY 25, 2022
This would take additional research, but the shared property line in this instance is approximately 100 feet in length and the length (north-south) of the adjacent proposed deck is approximately 28’ 6”.

17.What is the width of the second story deck (east to west)? Approximately 17’ 5” of usable deck space (one portion approximately 23’ 4”)

18.What is the total square footage of the upper and lower deck combined? Deck: 576 sf Lower Patio: 286 sf = 862 sf

19.Outdoor decking and patios are not calculated in total FAR, correct? Correct, as long as they are “uncovered,” or if covered, meet a certain proportion of “openness” around their vertical perimeter, which this project has demonstrated for both the deck and lower patio.

20.Would you provide a graph that shows the changes made from the first submitted plans to the revised plans?
July 25, 2022 Item 10

CITY COUNCL AGENDA QUESTIONS
JULY 25, 2022
Changes Made Between 12.15.21
DRB and 2.23.22 DRB (plans from 5.2.22
CC hearing are same as 2.23.22 DRB
plans)
Changes Made Between 5.22.22 CC
hearing and 7.25.22 CC hearing

1. Front entry feature reduced
in height by 5’

1. Structure shifted two feet west
(increasing setback on east and reducing
setback on west)

2. Materials on east wall varied
for articulation: stucco on bottom,
horizontal siding on top (previously
mostly stucco)

2. Upper deck size increased eight square
feet

3. Additional Eugenia trees
proposed along east wall

3. North, west, and south wall of second
story living space in same location;
eastern wall straightened and setback 9’
6” (previously 7’ 6”).

4. Planter added along south to
reduce size of deck by 111 square feet
and push usable deck space away from
edges

5. Additional Eugenia trees
proposed along west PL to increase
privacy to neighbor

21.The Resolution "Resolved" clause at page 6 refers to the "Design Review Board" when it should state "City Council."
See answer below

22.The word "cited" should be "sited” at page 8 item 7.

These two administrative updates can be made to the resolution.

July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
Subject: FW: 624 8th St. Project - DRB021-018
From: Dail Peirce <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 1:39 PM
To: Dwight Worden <[email protected]>; Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>; Dan Quirk <[email protected]>; Tracy Martinez <[email protected]>; David Druker <[email protected]>; Sarah Krietor <[email protected]>; Jennifer Gavin <[email protected]> Subject: 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.

Dear Del Mar Council Members, I'm sorry to find that you are giving real consideration to a project that adds no beauty or value to the neighboring properties. A major attraction and belief in value comes from the expectation that your neighbor intends you no harm. The revisions requested
for the named project are a mismatch to the neighboring properties, and injurious to their value. I sincerely hope that you find this project unacceptable as proposed.

Sincerely,
Dail M. Peirce
Del Mar, CA
1 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Jennifer Porter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 2:06 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Chelsea Ziskin
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.

We live at 428 10th Street, Del Mar, CA 92014 and we support the new Ziskin Residence located at 624 8th Street. I have reviewed the story poles and feel that their design fits the scale of the neighborhood and DOES NOT infringe on the view of the neighbors to the east.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Jennifer Porter
310-663-5070
1 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Jamie Jensen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 3:06 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: City Council Hearing 7/25/2022
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.

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 will add tremendous value to the community and especially on 8th street.

The DRB was a unanimous decision with a 5-2 vote in favor of the Ziskins and we feel this must be upheld.

Thank you
Henrik & Jamie Jensen
1 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Updated Red dot for item 11: Support DRB approval and deny appeal From: Laura DeMarco <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 5:05 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box <[email protected]>
Subject: Updated Red dot for item 11: Support DRB approval and deny 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 City Council Members and Staff,
We join many neighbors and families with children in Del Mar to support the DRB’s overwhelming 5-2 vote of approval for the Ziskin family’s project at 624 8th Street. 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.

The Ziskin project was approved after going through a comprehensive 2-year CPP and DRB process with substantial neighborhood input and community support. Every DRB member conducted due diligence by visiting the Ziskin property and their neighbors to better evaluate the unique characteristics of each property, sight lines, elevation, drainage issues, and how the final plan met the DROs. Video of the final DRB hearing disclosures and deliberations clearly demonstrate the fairness and effectiveness of the CPP and DRB process.

Our Balboa Avenue neighbors went through a similar process when the DRB approved their new 2-story house with almost 700 ft of decking on their front-facing 2-car garage and 2-car carport. Their neighbors supported the new larger ocean-view deck because of the goodwill built by the new owner, an older couple who had lived in Del Mar for decades, and the previous late owner who hosted neighborhood holiday pot lucks. As shown in the approved plans below, this expansive decking is even larger and more visible than that of the Ziskins:
1 July 25, 2022 Item 10
2 2 July 25, 2022 Item 10
3 Like my “new” Balboa neighbor, Chelsea Ziskin has deep roots in our community as she grew up here. Since buying their house on 8th Street7 years ago, the Ziskins contribute to our community as active volunteers for the Friends of the Powerhouse, Del Mar Heights School, and as sponsors of youth sports teams, including the Little League team that recently won the district championship and is now in the playoffs that could lead to the Little League World Series.

During the pandemic they picked up and delivered groceries for their elderly neighbors. With four sons on travel sports teams, they spend their weekends and most of their holidays away from Del Mar at tournaments all over California, Arizona and Nevada. Hopefully, they will make it to the Little League World Series in Williamsport, PA too.

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 one of their very large outdoor areas surrounding their house and guest house. In fact, the Ziskin’s project will give this neighbor’s 2-story guest house a new ocean view. 3 July 25, 2022 Item 10
4 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. The Ziskin’s proposed new 2,000 SF 2-story house reduces the footprint of their old house and increases outdoor play space for their children. The appellant’s house and guest house are also two stories high as are many other houses in the neighborhood.

Like the DRB, this City Council appeal hearing is quasi-judicial. This means that each city council member is charged with being fair and unbiased. One council member is already recused because of their relationship with the appellant so now there are only four voting council members.

However, disclosure at the May 2nd City Council hearing revealed that, unlike the DRB, not all voting council members toured the Ziskin property and that of the appellant. Three council members accepted invitations from the Ziskins and the appellant. The fourth met only with the appellant but not the Ziskins. This continues to be the case at this hearing tonight which does not demonstrate fairness.

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

Thanks for your consideration,
Laura and Ralph DeMarco
4 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Red dot: Ziskin project.

From: Robin Crabtree <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 1:23 PM
To: Ashley Jones <[email protected]>; Leslie Devaney <[email protected]> Subject: Red dot: Ziskin project.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
(Please post in file)
Red dot: Ziskin project
Council meeting June 25, 2022
I am writing this red dot to help call out two council members for outrageous and unethical conduct.

I personally spoke to Terry Gaasterland and Tracy Martinez at the July 4 th parade giving my opinion about a matter before the Council. I asked them to please move towards approving the Ziskin project that was continued by Council for a de novo hearing on July 25, 2022. I was told by both Gaasterland and Martinez that “ you know we can’t discuss Council business with you”.

Now I find out that Gaasterland and Martinez were “campaigning” yesterday in the Ziskin neighborhood and actively trying to persuade the Ziskin neighbors against the Ziskin project! In particular Gaasterland and Martinez misrepresented facts and put fears in an elderly woman in that neighborhood! Now I find out that this woman was initially supportive of this project and now questioning the project? Were Gaasterland and Martinez involved in influencing this elderly woman? So I guess that they could not talk with me about the Ziskin project but they can actively talk against the project with others as they were “campaigning”. What kind of shenanigans are taking place here? Aren’t Council members elected to represent ALL residents and remain unbiased especially when moving into a de novo hearing.

I am asking the City Attorney to please have Gaasterland and Martinez explain in a transparent, honest and open way in the Council meeting why they were campaigning against the Ziskin project on Saturday prior to the de novo hearing on July 25, 2022. Please be aware I have access to first hand reports from Ziskin neighbors so Gaasterland and Martinez need to disclose fully (1) what they were doing discussing and trying to persuade neighbors against the Ziskin project, 2) what conversations they have had with any and all of the neighbors including the Ziskins and (3) what conversations they have had with council member David Drucker who has already recused himself since his boss is one of the parties in this matter. Since Gaasterland and Martinez have now shown a clear bias against the Ziskin project prior to the de novo hearing, I demand they each recuse themselves from this hearing. They should each publicly be admonished by the City Attorney for their improper, biased and unethical conduct and actions during their “campaigning”. It cannot be appropriate for a Council member to act this way prior to a de novo hearing. 1 July 25, 2022 Item 10
2 Thank you for your prompt attention and action in this manner.

Robin Crabtree
Del mar
Sent from my iPhone
2 July 25, 2022 Item 10
1 Melinda Gould
From: Claire Mcgreal <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 10:10 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Dwight Worden-Private; Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk; David Druker; Terry TG. Gaasterland Subject: Red Dot for #11 on CC agenda today
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,
Please approve the “941” project at 941 Camino Del Mar. This project is a long-awaited improvement to our downtown, and will greatly aid the revitalization our downtown has been undergoing these past few years. 941 will also result in significant public benefits to Del Mar in terms of infrastructure, and will increase revenues to the City. It will provide much needed housing in general, as well as 2 affordable units, helping Del Mar toward its Statemandated goals.

There has been so much foot-dragging on this project, for a number of reasons, but now there is no obstacle to approval, so please approve this project today!
Respectfully Submitted,
Claire & Tom McGreal
1135 Stratford Ct., Del Mar
1 July 25, 2022 Item 11
1 Melinda Gould
From: Betty Wheeler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 10:42 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot: #11, Ordinance Approving the 941 CDM Development Agreement 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 Council Members:

I urge you to support without further delay the requested action in Item #11 on today's agenda, introducing the ordinance approving the development agreement and the associated regulatory housing agreement for the 941 CDM project.

Del Mar voters overwhelmingly approved this project, by a vote of 1,898 (79.9%) in favor to 476 (20.05%) opposed.

The Planning Commission has unanimously recommended approval of the development agreement.

The Coastal Commission has already approved the necessary LCPA.

These expressions of support and approval for this project are significant, and the community will garner immediate and long-term benefits from this project. This attractive and communityserving project will replace an empty lot that has been a downtown eyesore for decades, greatly improving the appearance of our downtown district. At a time when California, San Diego County, and Del Mar itself all lack sufficient housing to meet the needs, we will gain both affordable and market-rate units.

Other benefits include monetary contributions totaling $137,000, including for Shores Park master planning ($50,000), the Safe Railroad Crossing and Coastal Rail Trail project ($25,000), CDM Streetscape ($35,000), and public art acquisition ($15,000). In terms of longer-term financial benefit, TOT is provided for, with respect to hospitality uses of the market-rate units.

And of course, gaining two affordable units (where only one is required) will be a substantial benefit not only to the City and its 6th Cycle obligations, but also to low-income individuals or families.

Other priority options for meeting our housing obligations will potentially require expenditure of significant public funds (e.g., housing at the fairgrounds or on City-owned properties including Civic Center Expansion Area C or 28th Street). These two units will be created with NO expenditure of public funds, and will be deeded essentially in perpetuity for public housing, given the restrictions on second and subsequent sales transactions that re-start the 55-year clock.

HCD takes notice when we actually produce affordable housing, and they will take notice when we delay or obstruct the production of affordable housing.

In addition, the market-rate housing will be a valuable addition to our City. I know one resident who has already contacted the developer to be wait-listed for one of the market-rate units -- she sees this property as more suitable than her current home as a residence where she can "age in place," and having options like this will enable to remain in Del Mar when her current residence is no longer practical as she gets older.
1 July 25, 2022 Item 11
2 The "by right" concern is not only speculative, but entirely under the control of the City Council.

Nor does this "by right" concern extend to the commercial zone; it is limited entirely to the property subject to the 941 Specific Plan.

The community strongly supports this project, and I urge you to act without further delay to introduce the Ordinance.

Sincerely,
Betty Wheeler
Seaview Ave.
2 July 25, 2022 Item 11
1 Melinda Gould
From: Anne Farrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:17 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: RED DOT: Agenda Item #11 - Please Approve the Ordinance for 941 Camino del Mar 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 have lived here long enough to remember the old gas station that once sat on this lot, and then its demolition, and then the long and circuitous route to finally building something on the site. For far too long, it has been an ugly “entrée” into Del Mar for those driving along Camino del Mar. Thus we are writing to urge the entire City Council to vote in favor of the 941 Camino del Mar project, approval of which the Planning Commission unanimously recommended to you in May 2022. It is time for this project to move forward.

There are many reasons we urge your support, not least of which is because the voters approved it by an overwhelming majority, the Coastal Commission has certified the development’s LCPA, and because this project brings so many positive benefits to our City. These include 1) The building of 2 deed-restricted affordable housing units, with additional requirements required to be deed-restricted for affordable housing—so important to our compliance with State requirements 2) There will be $137,000 in funding from the developer that will come to Del Mar for such things as a safe railroad crossing on our bluffs, the Shores Park master plan, and public art 3) Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) income for the City that will be paid for any hospitality uses of the market-rate units at 941 Camino del Mar
4) Important infrastructure improvements in the neighborhood, including power line undergrounding of adjacent utilities, construction of a new sewer main, and streetscape improvements in front of 941 Camino del Mar
At your last meeting, two of the members, Ms. Gaasterland and Ms. Martinez, would not support the approval, citing speculative by-right development concerns. The legal questions have been explored and those “by-right” concerns have been answered. As the staff report indicates, this speculative issue would relate only to the 941 property and not to the commercial zone, and the City Council has complete control at that time to avoid the application of by-right development to this property.

For these reasons, we urge unanimous Council support of 941 Camino del Mar. It is time to get that unsightly empty lot completed. We hope that Ms. Gaasterland and Ms. Martinez will join Mayor Worden, Mr. Druker, and Mr. Quirk in supporting the Ordinance.

Sincerely,
Anne Farrell & John Farrell (member of the Planning Commission) Via Alta, Del Mar
1 July 25, 2022 Item 11
1 Melinda Gould
From: FELISE LEVINE <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:19 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: RED Dot for 942 Project
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 support the 941 Camino del Mar Project for the following reasons:

1. It was approved by the voters.

2. It will contribute to a more vibrant downtown.

3. This mixed use project will contribute to low income housing.

Thanks,
Felise Levine
Felise Levine, Ph.D.

Licensed psychologist PSY 11219 (retired)
Board member, Diabetes Research Connection, a 501(c)3.

Board member, San Diego Psychoanalytic Center, a 501(c)3. www.drfeliselevine.com
858-692-0355
1 July 25, 2022 Item 11
1050 Camino Del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 | 858.755.9313 | www.delmar.ca.us July 24, 2022
California Coastal Commission VIA EMAIL & MAIL
455 Market Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94105
[email protected]
SUBJECT: Comments on Draft Public Trust Guiding Principles and Action Plan Dear Executive Director Ainsworth and Members of the Coastal Commission, On behalf of the City of Del Mar, I am writing to provide comments on the Commission’s draft public trust-related policies and five-year action plan in process. Del Mar is a small coastal city that is critically linked to its shoreline. The anticipated impacts of projected sea level rise have been studied and considered at the local level. The City, with help from Coastal Commission grant funding, invested significant resources to plan ahead to adapt and protect local coastal resources including preparation of a vulnerability assessment, sea level rise analysis, adaptation plan, wetland migration assessment, and sediment management plan.

The City understands that application of the public trust principles set forth under State law may lead to future circumstances where a shift in ownership boundaries may occur.

Further, the City understands the Commission’s obligation under its enabling law to assure that public rights are not unnecessarily lost, and where appropriate, are mitigated as a result of boundary line migration. The City also recognizes that this is a complicated matter with many unknown factors and associated legal uncertainties that make it difficult to fully evaluate potential impacts.

The public trust guidelines must be flexible and adaptive, and must afford local jurisdictions the ability to determine the best approach for adaptation in accordance with their certified Local Coastal Programs (LCP) as is provided for by the Coastal Act. A onesize fits all approach may limit a community’s ability to prepare adaptation policies and plans best suited for their respective community.

After careful consideration following a multi-year process, the City’s adopted Adaptation Plan identifies protection of both public access and flood control for its existing beach level neighborhood as a top priority. This includes prioritization of the maintenance of the existing system of shoreline protection in this neighborhood. This system facilitates public beach access for over three million annual visitors to Del Mar beach and protects the 1 July 25, 2022 Item XII-P
Draft CCC Policies and Action Plan
July 24, 2022

Page 2 ends

existing streets and over 600 homes in the North Beach neighborhood against flooding from significant storm and flood events.

The proposed policies under guiding principles #5 and #8 raise concern for Del Mar due to the potential for conflict with the City’s voter-adopted Beach Preservation Initiative (BPI) from 1988, as incorporated within the City’s certified LCP. The BPI removed previously existing private encroachments from the public beach and provides a system of public access at each street end in its beach level neighborhood.

Following is a brief explanation of potential unintended consequences that could occur if the policy document is adopted.
 Guiding Principle #5 includes consideration of “future public tidelands” in addition to anticipated impacts to current public tidelands. However, while the City understands generally what is meant by this phrase in the draft document— tidelands that may appear in the future as the boundary line migrates inland— “future tidelands” have not been defined with any specificity as to what that might mean in Del Mar This creates uncertainty for implementation, particularly if interpreted in a manner that conflicts with existing boundary line agreements and property rights of existing developed neighborhoods (i.e., Del Mar’s North Beach neighborhood), and regional-serving development (i.e. State Fairgrounds) that conforms to the local LCP.
 Guiding Principle #8 states “shoreline protection devices adversely impact public trust resources”, but it does not have any clarifying language to reflect site-specific context. Further, it does not account for any associated mitigation that provides beneficial long-term benefits to public trust resources. The concern is that a strict interpretation of this policy could potentially inhibit the implementation of desirable natural adaptation strategies (e.g., use of “living levee” berms for flood protection) and coastal access improvements (e.g., trails adjacent to wetlands).  Further, the Principles should acknowledge that policies that may result in reduction or removal of historic flood control measures that then cause private or public land to be permanently inundated, may expose the Coastal Commission and local jurisdictions to claims for damage and takings.

The City respectfully requests that the Coastal Commission’s draft public trust guidelines maintain sufficient flexibility to afford local jurisdictions the ability to determine the best approach for local adaptation in accordance with certified LCP, public trust doctrine, and the Coastal Act. The City requests that such flexibility be cited as a high priority and goal in the guidelines.
2 July 25, 2022 Item XII-P
Draft CCC Policies and Action Plan
July 24, 2022

Page 3 ends

The City looks forward to continuing working together with the Commission and coastal jurisdictions statewide to protect coastal resources, coastal access, public safety, and maintain a sustainable future for our coastal communities.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Dwight Worden
Mayor
cc: Del Mar City Council
Ashley Jones, City Manager, City of Del Mar
Karen Brindley, Planning & Community Development Director Amanda Lee, Principal Planner
3 July 25, 2022 Item XII-P
1 Melinda Gould
From: Heather Lindsey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:03 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red dot. : XII.P: Committee Reports Sea-Level Rise Implementation Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Martinez).

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 whom it may concern,
I wanted to share the letter I sent to the CCC regarding their Draft Public Trust Guiding Principles & Action Plan.

Additionally, I wanted to thank the City for sending comments into the CCC on this topic.

Respectfully,
Heather Lindsey
Begin forwarded message:

From: Heather Lindsey <[email protected]>
Subject: Commnets to Th6e (Draft Public Trust Guiding Principles & Action Plan) Date: July 23, 2022 at 5:46:05 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Re: Th6e (Draft Public Trust Guiding Principles & Action Plan) Dear California Coastal Commissioners:

I am writing regarding my concerns with the California Coastal Commission’s Draft Public Trust Guiding Principles & Action Plan (“Draft”).

Specifically, I respectfully request that California Coastal Commission’s Draft should not include · Remove any policy requiring removal of existing, privately owned structures. · Clarify, that legally, “hard” shoreline protective devices do not violate the public trust doctrine. · Remove any policy requiring a prediction of the movement of the MHTL for the expected life of proposed development.

Along with being unconstitutional, it is bad policy.
· Remove the Coastal Commission’s attempt to create its own methodology for measuring mean high tide levels inconsistent with NOAA, surveyors, and scientists as the employees of the Commission are not the best positioned to do so. 1 July 25, 2022 Item XII-P
2 The Coastal Commission and this Draft continues to ignore that a one-size fits all policy will not work for California given the different unique geomorphic environment that lay up and down the coast. Specifically, it will not work for Del Mar. Del Mar’s beach uniquely slopes downward from the western-most beachfront barriers as you move inland. Policy that allows for the removing of structures and eliminating seawalls, flood barriers, or rock revetments that historically have maintained our shorelines will destroy our beach and the neighborhoods east of it. In Del Mar, the private and City seawalls allowed east of the Shoreline Protection Area (SPA) line are critical to prevent flooding and protect hundreds of inland homes that lay in a flood zone at an elevation lower than the homes along the shoreline. The seawalls that are allowed in Del Mar’s Coastal Commission-approved LCP protect more than just the front line of houses; the seawalls protect the entire Beach Colony neighborhood which as per the USPS EDDM website contains 628 residential properties (over 30% of the 2,033 residences in the 1.8 sq mile city of Del Mar) and 21 business properties. The homes behind the seawalls offer additional protection given the drop behind the homes.

In contrast to the policies in the Draft, Del Mar's Adaptation Plan places top priority on maintaining a continuous walkable beach and on ensuring public access to that beach. The policies herein will lead to the loss of direct public access to the coast for residents and visitors due to flooding and erosion. Currently, the City of Del mar maintains access points with drop-off areas and nearby public parking at every street end along a mile of broad, public beach. Further, the City provides Lifeguard services every day of the year to ensure public safety and increase access even further to all beach visitors regardless of their ability to swim and surf. His does the opposite; the Draft looks a lot like a road to the same ends as managed retreat; something the City of Del Mar is against. The end result of the policies outlined in the draft would lead to the flooding of one-third of Del Mar and leave the town with a swamp, not a beach. Additionally, the policies outlined in the Draft threaten public access as the arterial coast highway linking the City of Del Mar with surrounding beach communities, as much of the Pacific Coast Highway and the associated provision of free publicly-available parking spaces would be negatively impacted by flooding.

Additionally, the policies laid forth herein are a taking. Removing the walls and homes will intentionally and negligently reduce flood measures. "A government act intentionally reducing historic flood control measures, and thereby causing private land to be permanently inundated, is a taking under the California Constitution." Pacific Shores Property Owners Association v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 12 The seawalls that protect neighborhoods and hundreds of homes and the PUBLIC ACCESS in Del Mar are fully compatible and consistent with the California Coastal Act. Both priorities guided Del Mar's Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan that was adopted as part of the Community (General) Plan in 2018. It reflects Del Mar's unique local landscape and existing structures.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Respectfully,
Heather Lindsey
Del Mar Resident
2 July 25, 2022 Item XII-P
1 Melinda Gould
From: Nancy Stoke <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 12:19 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Council Agenda Item XII.P Committee Reports Sea Level Rise Implementation Subcommittee 07252022
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 Mayor and Council Members,
Below please find the input that I sent to CCC in regards to the draft proposed policy Th6e.

Why is it that as residents we were not made aware by the city of these tremendously detrimental-to-Del Mar proposed policies so that we could have worked together to respond in a more timely manner? I do appreciate your getting out comments on behalf of the city; I hope they will be well received by CCC.

Thank you. Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Stoke
From: Nancy Stoke
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2022 12:39 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: nancystoke
Subject: Public Comment Th6e
Dear California Coastal Commissioners,
This email is in response to your recent CCC Notice and DRAFT Report Th6e regarding sea level rise and your policy planning regarding property boundaries and property rights. I think your draft document is too farreaching; I especially have very serious concerns regarding the proposed action plan and its impact on property rights, as I see no acknowledgment that one size does not fit all and that local leaders know best how to manage their communities. Specifically I draw your attention to the following:
1 – The seawalls that are allowed in Del Mar’s Coastal Commission-approved LCP protect more than just the front line of houses; the seawalls protect the entire Beach Colony neighborhood which as per the USPS EDDM website contains 628 residential properties (over 30% of the 2,033 residences in the 1.8 sq mile city of Del 1 July 25, 2022 Item XII-P
2 Mar) and 21 business properties. Postal Route C011 data and map are below:

Del Mar’s seawalls are also different in that they protect public access to the beach at the end of each east/west street from 15th St north to 29th St, as well as protecting public infrastructure such as the railroad tracks which are a major state-wide transportation and shipping corridor. Del Mar’s seawalls provide many important public benefits which is why they were approved in the first place. Removal would be a huge mistake for which there is no mitigation.
2 – The Shoreline Preservation Area (SPA) boundary marks where seawalls can and cannot go without need for Coastal Commission approval. The SPA boundary is included in the LCP. 3 – Existing private structures are allowed to be protected in the California State Constitution:
2 July 25, 2022 Item XII-P
3 and the Federal Constitution:
and cannot be taken without just compensation. I see nothing in your policy proposal that addresses just compensation; nor do I see acknowledgment of constitutionally-granted property rights.

Prohibiting the protection of private property and extrapolating a new mean high tide line both appear to be in conflict with constitutional rights.

I have many other concerns not addressed here. Overall I find your draft policy relies on unproven suppositions, misapplies State and Federal law, ignores property rights law, and proposes policies that are unworkable especially in Del Mar, doesn’t allow for exceptions, assumes all California coastal property is the same, and unfairly and unconstitutionally burdens coastal property owners, and therefore SHOULD BE REJECTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.

Thank you for your time, attention, and hard work on this most important matter. It needs more work please.

Nancy Stoke
Del Mar Beach Colony Resident
3 July 25, 2022 Item XII-P
1 Melinda Gould
From: john imperato <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 4:02 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Terry Gaasterland; Dwight Worden; Dan Quirk; David Druker; Ashley Jones
Subject: Late—Agenda item XII. P: Comments on Public Trust Guiding Principles and Action Plan 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.

California Coastal Commission VIA EMAIL & MAIL
455 Market Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94105
[email protected]
SUBJECT: Comments on Public Trust Guiding Principles and Action Plan Dear Executive Director Ainsworth and Members of the Coastal Commission, Thank you for protecting California’s most precious resource.

As a lifelong surfer, fisher and environmental advocate, I am indebted to the Coastal Commission’s for its efforts to protect our California Coast.

All guiding principles relating to the Public Trust and public/private lines of demarcation must include the following considerations that relate to human-made structures that already impact Del Mar’s mean high water level:

Del Mar's beaches are already compromised by human-made structures, even in the absence of sea level rise.

In his well-respected books, coastal shoreline expert Gary Griggs states that 70-90% of natural beach sand replenishment comes from the upland watersheds – in Del Mar’s case the upper San Deguito River, where there are literally mountains of SAND. Any tour of the upland watershed by any of the Coastal Commissioners or Staff would clearly show nature’s impressive storehouse of perfectly- grain-sized sand that the river water would deposit on the beach during heavy rains, but for the human-built dam up by Lake Hodges. Experts estimate that there are millions of cubic feet of this precious sand trapped in the upland watersheds. Del Mar beaches have been starved from this needed and major natural source of sand. Without this primary natural beach replenishment mechanism, Del Mar experiences net erosion from wave action. This primary natural sand movement, “the downtown express sand train” has been derailed by the dam.

Cross-sand movement, a secondary natural source of Del Mar’s beach sand is provided by the flow of sand parallel to the shore. This secondary natural source of sand replenishment has also been compromised by another humanmade structure - the Oceanside Breakwater. This secondary lateral sand movement, “the cross-town sand train” has been derailed by the O-side breakwater.

Independent of the added impact of Sea Level Rise, Del Mar's beaches are currently suffering net erosion from these MAJOR human-made structures.
1 July 25, 2022 Item XII-P
2 The third human-made threat to Del Mar’s beach, is embodied in the environmental free-loader. The country’s and the world’s environmental loads are expected to make the beach problem at Del Mar worse through sea level rise. While Del Mar is extremely proactive on climate issues, with its sustainability committee and other policies, Del Mar is a small city that suffers disproportionately from people’s use of fossil fuels in other parts of the country, which near and far are the main contributors to sea level rise.

Please consider Del Mar’s engagement and exemplary advocacy for the Coastal Act’s beach access priorities when developing a policy on defining the public trust. With its superb beach access, visitor and lifeguard services, Del Mar is a model host to all seeking beach access.

Sincerely,
John Imperato
Del Mar, Ca.
2 July 25, 2022 Item XII-P

Del Mar City CouncilJuly 25, 2022

Del Mar City Council
July 25, 2022