matt bator - delmar.ca.us
TRANSCRIPT
Matt Bator
<rom:¡êht!
To:Subject:
Alice WinnWednesday, May 21,2014 3:57 PMMatt BatorWilliam and Lisa Ruh/1205 Cuchara Drive
Matthew Bator, AICP
Senior PlannerCity of Del Mar
Mr. Bator,Thank your for explaining the plans for the above property. Please forward my comments to Design Review Board fortheir consideration.
RE:William and Lisa Ruh property at 1205 Cuchara Drive
I have reviewed the plans for the above project and I support the project ¡n its entirety. lt will enhance the property and
be a welcome addition to the neighborhood.
Sincerely,Alice Winna bwinn @ road ru nner.com664 Rimini Road
DelMar, CA92OL4-2638
7
May 20.2014
Del Mar Design Review BoardCity of Del Mar1050 Camino del MarDel Mar. CA 92014
RE: DRB-14-04 ILC-14-01 / CDP-14-04 (Ruh ResirJence)
Dear Design Review Board:
The Ruh home at 1205 Cuchara comes to the DRB afier a yeoman's effort to tìnd aproject design that is usable by the Ruhs and that successt-ully mitigates all keyneighborhood concems we have heard throughout the pre-DRB planning process.
At the CPP level, we heard concems to protect ocean views fiom the two homes locateddirectly behind us: Blasingames at 694 Rimini Road antl the Ryes (now Tumers) at l20lCuchara Drive. A view study was conducted using hand-held. color-coded height poles toidentifu ocean view corridors and establish nraximum building heights that preierve allprimary scenic views.
previously-proposed driveway access ofTRimini Road. The Rimini driveway access hasbeen eliminated and access will be taken off the existing driveway
The resultant DRB design invoh'es a one-story house at the existing upper pad with atuck-under, lower level walk-out basement below. This lower level area wiil walk outonto a small useable yard space (the only open yard space on the properly). Greatconsideration has been taken with the walls and landscaping to ensure that landscaping issite suitable. drought-tolerant- and works to soften the appearance of the home fromsurrounding properties and public rights-of'-way. Over 213 of the existing slope f'rontingCuchara and Rimini will be retained in-place.
Through the design process. we have also received concerns regarding the project'spotential effects on privacv. and neighborhood lighting and noise quality. Wehavemodifìed the exterior lighting plan to low intensity. low wattage fixrures. The spaequipment will be vaulted and concealed within a lightwell,
As a result of the CPP process and earll'neighborhood fèedback. so much of what goesinto a project is not what is presented to the DRB. We hope that you recognize the pre-DRB work that has occurred to mitigate previous neighbor concerns and ask that youapprove the project as presented.
Thank
Bill and Lisa Ruh
re I,.i
I
¿l
I
RECEIVED
MAY 2 22014 1 105 Cuchara Dr.Del Mar, CA 92014
CITY OF DEL MARPI.ANNING DEPARTMENT
858 755 9662f reid @ ucsd.edu
May 22,2014Del Mar Design Review Board
City Hall
Del Mar CA 92014
RE: DRB 1+05 and [C t4-O2 - Baum : tl,27 Cuchara Dr, Del Mar .
May 28, 2Ot4
Design Review Board members:
We have worked with the Baums in an attempt to satisfy our concerns with theconstruction of a large accessory structure in the R 1-L0 zone which ¡mpacts ourback garden and our privacy.
We have reached a compromise. By its nature such an agreement does not give
either party exactly what was desired. Nevertheless, we appreciate the size andheight reduction , the increased set back from the lot line and the offer of a short-term vegetation easement .
We hope to retain our friendly relationship with the Baums after a stressful severalmonths.
We thank the architect and the city staff for their help.
Joseph and Freda Reid
1,¿^(l
þr**--r- { lÇ**
h Smith
From:Sent:To:€c:Subject:
Laurie Blasingame < lblasingame@gmail,com >
Friday, May 23,2014 8:36 AMJoseph Smithjobrien@flagg,comComment: 1205 Cuchara
RECEIVED
MAY 2 3 2ù14
CIW OF DEL MARPI.ANNING DEPARTMENT
Design Review Board -
We have been owners of 694 Rimini Rd since 1-982, Our home looks directly down on this new building project with our
windowsapproximatelylOydsfromtheirdwelling, Welikethedesignofthisnewprojectandfindthatthesizeisnotexcessive, Whilesomeofourviewmaybeimpingedupon,theremovalofatreeandtheundergroundingofthewireswillendupenhancingourview. Webelievethishomewillimprovethepropertyvaluesofthesurroundinghomesandwould like to see this particular home approved by your board.
Jim & Laurie Blasingame694 Rimini Rd
Del Mar, CA92O1,4
406-2s3-8923
1
CARL AND SHARON HILLIARD1246 Stratford Court
Del Mar, Californi a 92OL4
RECEIVED
MAY 2 7 ?U4
CITY OF DEL MARPLANNING DEPARTMENT
May 26,2A14
Design Review BoardCity of Del Mar
Re:
Del Mar, Calif'ornia 9201+
0pposition to Application for a Development Perrnit
APN : DRB -12-17 /LC-1305/CDP-I3-03l,ocation: 150 13th StreetOwners: Mark Savage and Lisa Crar'vford
Agent: tsatter KaY Associates
Zone: RZ
Contact Person: Matt Bator, AICP, Senior Planner
Dear Members of the Design Review Board,
We appreciate your thoughtful guidance during the third hearing on April Z3'
Z0I4,.on..inlng the proposed ãeveloprnent at L50 1.3th Stree[ During that hearing
we i*dicated that we were willing to .ó.p.omise with respect to our view issue by
giving up that portion of our view to resently located on
it,. ,i¡ri¡ng single story duplex. We April 29 and she
accepted the proposed contpromise a ur agreement in
writing.
We decided that Scott Linton would take the lead in finalizing both of our
agreements r,vith Ms. Batter. on May 7, Scott Linton sent Ms. Batter a lelter
a[reement of behalf of both of us that incorporated the above compromise as well as
all of the other understandings he had reached with her over the course of their
negotiations. A copy of fhat lãtter is marked as Attachment t hereto'
The following chronology of events then occurred:
. On May L3, Scott advised us that Ms. Batter had given his May 7 letler
to Mr. Savage and that she woulcl colltact us after the story poles went
up,
a The story poles went up on May 15 antl the north-west pole rvas
positioned in the middle of the chirnney.
On May l-5, I sent a picture of the incorrect story pole location to Scott
who sent it on to Ms' Batter'I
a
a
0n May 16, Ms. Batter responded that she had discovered an error on
the plåcement of the poles ancl they would be relocated on Monday'
"Wiih that pole movecl both poles rvill be where we had proposed to
the Hilliards." A copy of that email is marked as Attachment Z'
The pole was repos itioned that Monday, May 19, at a location aboutc chimn We sent a cture to
Scott tha[ afternoon saying that the pole needed to be moved a foot to
theright.Acopyofthatemailisinthepacketatpage3T.
. 0n May ZL and again on May 23, Ms. Batter replied that Mr. Savage
had ¡ót responded to her attempts to contact him. Copies of these
emails are marked as Artachment 3'
During this exchange, the Batters' filed a disingenuous letter with the Design
Review Board that is Exhibit C in the packet at page 33. This letter states in part
"'l'he poles have treen moved to reflect what we proposed to the Flilliards and wos
agreàd tu at our meeting." (Emphasis added). Attached to Exhibif C, at packet page
3[ir ,, .opy o[ a picturã representing our agreement that was sent to Ms' Batter on
Msü nt't-he DR-B meeting of April 2g, th" poìe labeled "Reìocation of New Pole" in
this picture is exactly rvheie Cail Hitliard indicated with the laser poittter that he
was willing to compiomise. Ms. Batter never disputed tlre fact that this picture is an
accurate representation of our agreement - and it is'
The intcgrity of the process that requires the parties to meet and try to
reach a compromisá ls undermined when this kind of flimflam occurs' The Linton
May T letter represents a holistic resolution that is wirhin the spirit and intent of tlte
pro.u5 and consistent with the parties'agreements and understanding.
In addition to depictions of the view corridors, the conditions of the May 7
letter provide:
1) That the i[ems placed on the decks not unreasonably impact the
Linton and Hilliard view corridors by imposing a five feet limit in
heightonsuchdeckitemsandotherprotrudingitemsnotbeattached to the walls.
2J That plants or trees at planted at ground level not be allowed to block
thesé view corridors by linriting them to eight feet in height'
'¿
3) That the parties participate in the undergrounding of utilities in the
amounts as calculated in accordance with the Cify of Del Mar's
assessment methodology. The Batters'are certainly aware that this
¡ethodology includes assessments for wires bordering the property
on front, side and/or back'
4) Because of the tangled history of this project, we respectlully submit
that DRB appror,"ùif any, should be conditioned on the agreement ol
the Director of Planning and Comnlunity Development to issue the
Design Review Permit in the form of a covenant in accorclance with
DRO section 23,08.170, This approach is intended to give notice to
subsequent P ul'chasers of the property oI the DRB terms and
allows the Cí to take an enforcement
actions that may be necessary to enforce the DRB decisions. It is
especially appropriare in preserving view corridors'
Reference is made to our letter of April 21 that lists the following
reasons for denial olthe owner's application [Application):
. The project adversely impac[s upon the purposes for which Chapter
23 was adoptecl (S23-08.040.4'11)
. The proposed development fails to limit the amotrnt of deSign
components which unnecessarily add bulk and mass to the building
but,,vhich are not calculated as floor area ratio [FAR) pursuant to
DMMC'l'itle 30, the Zone Code, (S23'08'078'EJ
. One or mol'e alternatives to the proposed design are avaiìable that
will produce a projecr that is useable by the Applicant anc! is similar in
qualìry to dcveiopnrent in the neighborhood. (S23.08.040'4.4)
. The proposed development unreâsonably encroaches upón the
primary scenic view of our property, which islocated across from the
southeast corner of the project' [S23'08'08 'A77 'H)
. The proiect fails to minimize the blockage of views from nearby lots
and public rights-of-way' [$30'20'060'B)
. 'f he design will create an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of our
propertY. [S2 3.08'072.D)
. The exterior appearance of the project is out of harmony with the
neighborhood'character and would result in the climinution ol the
I All statutory ret-erences are to Del Mar Municipal code
3
a
a
a
historic value of the older, existing residences in the area,
[s3o.2o.o60. A).
The design will cause the surrounding neighborhood to depreciate
materially in appearance or value. [S23.08.072'E)
The design is out of scale with other structures in the neighborhood
((s23.08.077.c)
The design unreasonably blocks significant pubtic coastal views'
(s23,08,077.4)
The proposed pro ect 1a il S to co mp v wt rh the above regul ation s ln ea ch a n d
We ectfuthird revised APPI ication
Very respectfullY subm itted,
u est that the D esrgn Rev Board rej ect rh eew
t* ,C\; tno^Carl Hilliard Sharon Hilliard
4
'l11ls^GRËELlENTblandbenrccnNfarksarageandl.isacrarrfbr,llSarage-cra$l'ord)atls(Jl.lislNct.scotttndPanrclal'intontlintorr)
ar l.ìl0 Sttåtford(.'oufluil<tCarl andSharon llillraid(llilliârdla¡ ll.l6-stratlbrdCoun.collectirel¡ rhc"Panics"
Rc lèrrncc is . ¡¡dc t. l)RD- I l- I 7,]l.C- I l-05, C Dp- I l-0.5 l thu "Slr uge-('¡¡rr l'ortl '\pplication" ) lhal seeks l)csrgn Rcr ierr lìoa rd appror al tt'
c(rnrtnlct a nc$ t\\o stoq housc at l-St, l-lú Streel in I^\l Ilar. ('aliftrrnia (lhc "Projcct")'
Ì \n untrb5tructerJ ìiic\\ o\cr thût pan ol'thc t'R)-i'icl shorrn on .,\llachnrents ¡\ ¿nd lì (*\'icrr Conidors"i
rhall tìc ma inra incd ¡l all t ¡nlcs hl Slr a gc-C rarr lììrd l or lhe l ill!' rì\ ncr l llnìltlng tn\ lcncc lrccs' shntbs. patxr lunl ¡lurc. llea tÙr\' lxrle 5
irnd othcr such risr¡¡l ,urp",r,r.ni. ttr ¡ itctgln not a(' c\cccd li\c (5) lèct atxrrc o ht¡ri¿onlal planr: that is thc hcrght ol'lhc ¡rroposctl
*tonJ ston dcck Nt¡ 5l;l¡ctufc r)r rltîchm¡rìt thercto sh¡ll ertend hcrtrnd thc sourh anrl nonhrrcsl \crlldll ltncs sht¡rrn trn llre
Atttlchtncnts
I cllcr (ìl '\olcetnenf
r\n unobstructed vicrr <rr cr anl olher pan of the- Projcct in thc rics conidor lionl etthr'r thc Linton or tlrllrard prol^-rtíes shall bc
ì thc parties each ¡rsrce lrl eontrihulc fo thr cosl ol'untlcrgroundrng thÈ ()\,ùrh('ad \ rres along the krundarics of lheir respcctir c prof¡Ùílc\
ìn an llrì¡runt calcul¡lcd in acc<rrdancc rr ith the ( ir¡ ol Drl llar's Jsscismcnr ntcthorlologr ( I ) Th( Paflrlrs rccog.nize that ectrnonltÈ< of qcAlc
rcsult in sar ings thar reduce thc inrlrr idual cxpense to lhc crrcnt Ìhat a majorir¡'olthe properl) rrlvncrs panic¡pate in lhe undcrgrounding projcct
Funhcr. thc engtncenn-p dc.igir ofan undergr<runding district inclit¡hh' rcsults in lhe ntcd !o underground a fx)ñion oft¡ti s!slem thal is not
id lacctìt t(ì ilnI proÊcn qrrncrs' boun<lan . i.:npa id u ntlcrgrrtund ing c\pcnse( s ) rcsuìting fÌonr là¡ lurc to part tcr patc 0nd;or lhe requlremcnls ol
!,nrrnl.c.ng dcsrgn s¡all be pard br thc rcnraining propcrt-\ o\\ners.-rn u'pr,t-t.tu basis ln no c\enl shall the ¡dditronal shared crpenscs crccr'd
thc .ar rrr3J rcali¿u.l b' rhc econ.mics ol'scalc ¡chicrcd h¡ thc fomration ofn largcr group
.l -l'hls agrccntcnt ¡ì c(rntincËnt ¡p{,n thc approrrl ol'thc Dc:ìlgn R!-\ l!'1\ B()îrd ol'thc t ierr ruslrir'ti¡rnç set l-onh hercin :rrul ol-the
aÊrccmcnt ol.thìe f)irecr,rr ot'elanning and Comnruntt)'Developrnent to lssue the Destgn Revie rv Pc'rnlit in the form of a covenant in
¡icortlance with Design Revterv Ordinartce section 23'08'170'
5 I-hrs a-ereerncnt shall bcconrc el l,JctiIc alìer thc placentùnt ol'nc\\ slory polls and subnrts¡i<rn t'l llcrr plans br Srrr age-(ìra$ lord
¡lùcuralùl\ rcfecting rh. "h,rc..halrgcs
and conrlitions. l-rnton antl llilliarrl shili pronrprl¡ gt|c Savagc-( ra\rlord \rrlnen approval (rl'such
c¡,rn ge in .¡,¡ ¡,1Ã and plan s. t '¡in sa id * rittcn appror al. and u ¡rn tr rit rce mcnt b) thc Direckrr o[ I'lmning and Cont tnun iry'
[)c'clopnrcnr puNuant r. fxìragraph { atxrr,:. Linton and tlilli:rrd shall sitl thetr oh.¡ections ttì lhc Pr()jccl ¡s anlended in accordancc rrith thc
rcnìs of this ^grccmcnl
imparmrcnts. trr r hcight not ltr il hcight not to c\cccd cight (El lèct aborc ground locl
:1
,\greed to this trl'\lar. l()lJ
\lark Sar agc I i:¡ ('¡¡rr lì¡rd
I har c rer rr.rrctl the plans ud placcnrent {)l'\tùn pol!-r on thc Pr(ì,tect I he r ¡ccuratch rellccl lhls ùSrccmcnt an'l I herch¡ \\ lllìdra\\ mv
r¡h.l('ctr(ìn lo lhe l¡rolcct
Scou .\ Linlon Datc I'anre lo [jor l- inton I)are
Sh¡rron llillrardCarl Hilliard l)ate
ATTACHMENT T
[)atc
From : "scott linton" <scottlinton@sbcglob al'neÞ ISubject: FW: Hilliard Savage
Date: MaY 16, 201 48.57'.32 AM PDT
To: "'Garl Hilliard"' <carlhilliard@gmail'com>cc: "Martinez, sharon" <[email protected]>
1 Attachment.30 KB
From : Batter Kay [mailto:batterkay@sbcglobal'net]Sent: FridaY, MaY 16, 20t4 8:36 AM
To: scott l¡ntonSubject: Re: Hilliard SavaEe
Scott,
we checked this AM and overlapped all the drawings and your photograph flom
their living room and found an enor in the placement of the northrvesterly pole.
It will be moveJapproximately 2' east on Monday. with that pole moved both
poles rvill be where-r.ve had proposed to the Hillards'
Hope this still works for them.
Thank you for your help in working this all out'
JANICE
ll.l'l"l'lìll ti"tIJÆIAATTEBIITE fAY ¡F<rc¡AT:E TEÚECÍE
"r¡l¡loøttttoRl!m.¡rRCAËla
ATTACHMENT 2
F rom : "scott l inton " <scottl i nton @ sbcglob al.neÞ êSubject: FWt Savage
Date: May 21 ,2014 8:53:53 AM PDT
To: "'Carl Hilliard"' <[email protected]>Cc : <[email protected]>
1 Attachment. 30 KB
From: Batter Kay lmailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, MaY 21,20L4 8:39 AM
To: scott lintonSubject: Savage
Scott,
Got your messages. We have not been able to reach Mark.
V/e will let you when we know something.
Janice
ll.l'l"JlÌll K.lT¿ffta Ï18B lrtñx^Y æt^lla AælffGÊrt1ü3¡t oGolfTooHìcDE- rl¡ÂG^fiÛla
.ATT.ÀCHMENT 3
f (:e' voen-
From:Subject:
Date:To:Cc:
"scott Iinton" <scottl inton @ sbcglob al'neÞ IFW: SavageMay 23, 201410:05:34 AM PDT
"'Carl Hilliard"' <carlhilliard@ gmail'com><sharon @ mooncoinllc.com>
1 Attachment,30 KB
From: Batter Kay lmailto:batterkay@sbcglobal'net]Sent: FridaY, MaY 23, 2At4 8:47 AM
To: scott lintonSubject: Savage
Scott,
We have emailed Mark- He hasn't responded yet'
Janice
ll.l'['l'lìll K..lTJÆ! l^flln¡AÍTIN IAY EEOqÀTI3 AæIfTæTBÎrÍ¡âr Írc(ItlooñlltDAI^R.CAlltl¡l
Scott A. Linton¡g¡o Stradord CourtDcl M¡r, CA Ol0t*
RECEIVED
MAY ? 7 .ilt,x
CITY OF DEL MARPLANNING DEPARTMENT
Design Review Board
City of Del Mar
1050 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, California 92014
Re: Opposition to Application for a Development Permit
APN: DRB-l 2-11 ILC-1305/CDP- I 3-03
Location: 150 l3ù Street
Owners: Mark Savage and Lisa Crawford
Âgent; Batter Kay Associates
Zone: R2
Dear Membors of the Board,
Afier the last hearing of April 29,2014,1 called Batter Kay in hopes of finalizing an agree¡nent
between the Applicanl Mark Savage , The Hilliards ("Hilliard") and the Lintons ("Lintôn") .
I sent Janice Batter a letter agreement on May ?ù that summarized the understanding of verbal
representations of the parties. I believe the board has a copy of this agreement.
Janice Batter and I exchanged phone calls that we would consummate the agreement once the story poles
were in place. On May I 5 the story poles were in place, but positioned in the m iddle of the chimney from the
Hillia¡d view corridor. Hillia¡d informed me that the position of the story pole was not what had been verballyagreed to by ttre Applicant and Hilliard. À copy of the conect position was sent to Janice Batter the same day. Theposition of the North story poles had not changed, but were still encrosching approximately one foot North of whatLinton had originally agreed to with Baner Kay.
The Southem portion of tlre Story pole wæ subsequently repositioned, but was about one foot south of the
verbal agreement with Hilliard. I phoned Janice Batter with this information and she told me she would get back tome after she spoke with the Applícant.
I received two e-mails informing me that Janice would get back to me afrer she spoke with tlrc applícant.Although I called her office several times, she never responded to me. Subsequently, I became aware of a letter sent
to the DRB from Batter Kay that totally mischaracterizes our attempts to reach agreement on these issues, This isvery disappointing in tlrat I have had a good relationstrip with Baner Kay in thc pæt, but feel that representing that Iagreed to the contents of their letter without notice that it was being sent is a breach of protocol.
I tt¡l not opposed to the ¡rplicartt having R sccon<l story, but based on these actions I rvould ask lhc l¡oardto dcny thc project as prcscntcd unlcss thc tbllowing nlodifications are urade:
l) The second story is redesigûcd to the originaI agrccd upon din:cnsiorìs so as to not block thc Linton orllilliard vierv corridors. Specifically, this rvould involve bringing thc Nortlr and Soutlì rvalls irr
approxinrately one foot. Linton n'ould still be losing a substantial vicrv lo thc south as well as
partially to the wcst ancl tiilliarcl rvould still lose so¡ne view to thc nortlr.
2) That plants or trees at ground levcl not block these vierv coridors by allou'irrg thcnl to grow nìolethan eight fcet in hcight.
3) 'l-hat DRB approval, if'any, should l¡e corrclitioned o¡r the agreenlcnt of thc Dírector of Planning andCommunifl Devclo¡rment to issue the Dcsign Revie,'v Pennit in the f'onn ola covenanl irr accordancervithDROsection23.08.l70. Thisa¡rproachisintendedtogivenoticetosubsequent¡rLrrchascrsofthepropelly of the DRB ternrs a¡rd conditions olapproval and allorvs tlre City to take any enlolccrncntactions tltal may bc rrcccssary f.o enforce tlre DI(B dccisions.
ln conclusion, the ¡rroject, as proposed, does rtot rneel thc flollorving code sectíons unless tlìese chnngcs arc nradc:
One or more altcrnatives to the ploposerl design are available that rvill ¡troducc a pro.jcct that is
uscablc by the Âpplicant and is siruilar in qualitl'to development in the neiglrliorhood.(ss23.08.040.¡\.4)
'Ilre pro¡roscd development unrcasorrably c¡rc¡'oaches upon the ¡:rirrrary sccnìc vierv of'or¡l'property,rvhíchislocatcdacrossf'rornthcsouthcastcorneroftlreproject. (S23.08.0S.077.11)
'l-he project lails to minintizc the blockagc olviervs from ncarby lols ancl ¡rublic lighLs-oÍ'-rvay,(s30.20.060.8)
Thank you for your attcntion to this lunttcr
Sirrccrcly
I
a
!
>,¿¿ z-,¿---a'Scott ancl Pamela Lintorr
Jose h Smith
From:Sent:To:Subject
Terry Plowden <[email protected]>Monday, May 26,201,4 t:32 PM
Joseph Smith1 2 0 5 C u ch a ra D rive - D R B -I4 -04 / CDP -L404 / LC-I401'
REC
IJIAY 2 7 2Û14
CITY OF DEL MAR
PI.ANNING DËPARTMENT
Joe,
Although I am not a property owner directly impacted by the proposed project, I have been to the site, reviewedthe plans and Staff Report and I support this project. The design of the proposed home is compatible with theneighborhood and occupies a smaller footprint than the existing residence, thus respecting view corridors ofneighboring properties. I am very familiar with several homes designed and constructed by Flagg CoastalHomes in Coronado and they are truly exceptional properties. There's no doubt this home will be a significantimprovement to the neighborhood,
Kindly include this correspondence in the DRB package for Wednesday's meeting and please don't hesitate to
contact me if you have any questions,
Terry R. Plowden540 Serpentine Drive
1
lVlay 22,2014
To: City of Del Mar1050 Camino del MarDel Mar, CA92014Attention: Joseph Smith and Design Review Board Members
RECEIVED
MAY 2 7 2tt4
CITY OF DEL MARPIåNNING DËPARTMENT
As a long-time resident, I feel very fortunate to live in Del Mar, where our properties areprotected against unreasonable light, noise, and the invasion of privacy. I live on thecorner of Cuchara Drive and Rimini Road, and am fearful that these property rights maywell be infringed upon by the proposed development at 1205 Cuchara Drivê.
The tall story poles have just recently been erected and indicate that the proposedresidence, decks, and spa have been extended to the very edge of the West-facingincline, This causes great concern. While I understand the desire to maximize a view, itis not necessary to hug the edge of the property. I know there is a view from the locationof the existing residence because, for a number of years, I have had my eucalyptustrees trimmed for the benefit of the previous owner.
All Del Mar residents prize their privacy. This proposed residence would deprive me ofprivacy in my yard, as well as within a fenced patio and the interior of my home. Pleasesee the attached photo taken from inside the master bedroom, with the story poles
indicating the proximity of the proposed residence, The guest bedroom, next to mine, is
similarly impacted. The heights of the story poles also indicate an extensive loss of sky
view from my home.
Even more serious than the lack of privacy is the problem of lighting and noise. With thelocation of the large spa and the expansive decks, this proposed second home promises
to þe a very attractive location for outdoor living and entertaining. I am certain that thelevels of lighting and noise would be nearly intolerable in this quiet, privacy-valuedneighborhood.
I respectfully request that you work with my neighbors and with me to ensure thecontinued valuable quality of life that we enjoy here in Del Mar.
Respectfully subm itted,
Donna West1215 Cuchara DriveDel Mar, CA92014858.755.9498west. emai l@road runner. com
\"165f - I
View of 1205 Cuchara Drive from inside my home at 1215 Cuchara Drive
wgsf , ?-
Jose Smith
From:
To:Cc:
Sent:
Subject:
Dennis Cruzan < [email protected] >
Wednesday, May 28, 2OL4 LL:25 AMJoseph Smith
[email protected]; [email protected] & Lisa Ruh redevelopment of 1205 Cuchara
Dear Mr. Smith-
Although I am not a property owner directly impacted by the proposed project, I have been to the site and am familiarwithMr.Ruh'splansfortheproperty. Thedesignoftheproposedhomeiscompatiblewiththeneighborhoodandoccupies a smaller footprint than the existing residence. I am very familiar with several homes designed and
constructed by Flagg Coastal Homes in Coronado and they are truly exceptional properties. There's no doubt this home
will be a significant improvement to the neighborhood, We look forward to an improvement to this site.
Dennis Cruzan
1
Jose Smith
From:Sent:To:Subject:
David Gamboa <[email protected]>
Wednesday, May 28,2014 11:3L AMJoseph Smith; [email protected] Cuchara
RECEIVED
I'[AY 2 g 2ût4
CITY OF DEL MARPljNNING DEPARTMENT
Dear Mr, Smith,
MynameisDavidGamboa. lamtheownerof apropertylocated all,t1-gthStreetinDelMar. lamwritingonbehalf ofthe Ruh family who is in the process of redeveloping a Del Mar property they recently purchased located at L205
Cuchara. I want to first say thank you to your and your associates who diligently oversee the preservation of ourcommunity. As an existing owner, I am grateful for your efforts.
Regarding the Ruhs and their property in particular lwould like you and the planning committee to knowthat ourcoastal village is welcoming a wonderful family with the capacity to invest and improve to the highest standards ofquality and excellence. The Ruhs were my neighbors in Rancho Santa Fe for more than a decade and have been activeparticipates in preserving community and neighborly interests.
The Ruhs have employed a superlative developer, Flagg Coastal Homes, that has supported and lead the design and
improvement efforts of another endearing coastal community in San Diego, the island of Coronado. I have no doubtthat the Ruhs and the people at Flagg will work to develop a home of the highest construction standards whilerespecting our coastal environment and the interests of their immediate neighbors.
I have visited the site personally and have been briefed on the development plans. While my property is not directlyimpacted by the Ruh's project, I believe our entire city materially benefits from the Ruh's investment and more
importantly by their decision to join our community. I am proud to call the Ruhs my neighbors in Del Mar. The
Development Review Board should be confident in their development plans. Please include this correspondence in theDRB package for Wednesday's meeting. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions or concerns.
Submitted Respectfully,
David Gamboa858.382.7107david (ôsa m boafa m i lv.com
1
May 28,20t4
RECEIVED
MAY 2I 2014
CITY OF DEL MAR
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
City of Del MarDevelopment Review Board
To Whom It May Concern
Although I am not a property owner directly impacted by the proposed projecf Ihave been to the site of the 1205 Cuchara project reviewed the plans and StaffReport, and I support this project. The design of the proposed home is compatiblewith the neighborhood and occupies a smaller footprint than the existing residence,thus respecting view corridors of neighboring properties. I am very familiar withseveral homes designed and constructed by Flagg Coastal Homes in Coronado andthey are truly exceptional properties. There is no doubt this home will be asignificant improvement to the neighborhood.
Kindly include this correspondence in the DRB package for Wednesday's meetingand please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey W, LunsfordResident123 Sea Orbit LaneDel Mar, CA920L4
Jose Smith
From:Sent:To:Subject:
Dear Mr. Smith
Jim Riedman <[email protected]>
Wednesday, May 28,2014 11:38 AMJoseph Smith1205 Cuchara
RECEIVED
MAY 2I 2014
CITY OF DEL MAR
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I am writing to express my support for the building project which is being proposed for 1205 Cuchara. My wifeand I have been residents of Del Mar since the beginning of 2006, owning a home on 1Oth street. Over thesepast years, we have seen a marked resurgence and vitality in Del Mar and I think the home being proposed onthis site is a further improvement to our community.
While I am not a property owner directly impacted by the proposed project, I have been to the site, reviewedthe plans and Staff Report and I support this project. The design of the proposed home is compatible with theneighborhood and occupies a smaller footprint than the existing residence, respecting view corridors ofneighboring properties. I am also familiar with several homes designed and constructed by Flagg CoastalHomes in Coronado and they are truly exceptional properties,
l'd ask that you include this correspondence in the DRB package for Wednesday's meeting and please don'thesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
James R. Riedmanjrí[email protected] Footwear Group, lncOfct 760.494.t?OO
Fqxr 760.804.9074Cell: 858.882.7t7t
5937 Dorwin Court, 1teLO9 | Corlsbod, Ca.92OOB I
www.nhoen otwear.com
1
Joseph Smith
From:Sent:To:Subject:
J a nette White Shelto n <ja nette@shelto nfa mi ly.org >
Wednesday, May 28,2014 6:54 AM
Joseph SmithRuh building project
RECEIVED
tì¡AY 2I 2tll4
Dear Design Review Board-CITY OF DEL MAR
PLANNING DËPARTMENT
We are the homeowners of 690 Rimini Road. The house has been in our family since it was built in 1960, We are writing
to support the Ruh building project on Cuchara, The plans indicate an appropriately sized and beautiful home and we
are pleased with the adjustments they have
made in response to input from the neighbors. We believe this home
will enhance the neighborhood and urge you to support the project.
Thanks very much,
Doug and Janette White Shelton690 Rimini Road
Del Mar, CA92O14
Joseph Smith
From:Sent:To:Subject:
Rande Turner < [email protected]>Tuesday, May 27,2014 8:46 PM
Joseph Smith1205 Cuchara DRB
PROFERTIgS
RECEIVED
tl(lÁY 2 I ?tì14
rorrde lurner I ræerltn:,
r ø nàa{.* r cs n tJo f u r n or.* o n l
{; 858 {td5 88{ró'13&5 t.c:a*t Bcvlctvcxc{. Dq¡{ Mcr, d¿t 920Tf
u:"vÍ ãät ÞJåiìrrå,
CITY OF DEL MAR
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Dear Joseph Smith,
Please distribute to members of the DRB, our support of Bill and Lisa'Ruh's plannedconstruction of their new house at 1205 Cuchara. Ourfamily recently purchased t20LCuchara. Our house overlooks 1205 Cuchara and shares a dr¡veway for access. We wereaware of the proposed project and met with the Ruhs prior to closing on our purchase,We are in favor of the project and are thankful that the Ruhs and their Design/Buildteam made an effort to design the project in such a way that it preserved our Oceanviews. We look forward to having them as neighbors, I also hope that I will be able toattend Wednesday evening's hearing and support the project. I am also aware that theBlasingames are also in favor of the proposed new home. Our two homes, because ofthe terrain, are the two closest, and uphill neighbors of the Ruhs.
Sincerely,
Rande Turner
x
ründæturn er
J h Smith
From:Sent:To:Cc:
Subject:
Gregg Wolfson < [email protected]>Wednesday, May 28,2014 11:50 AMJoseph Smith; [email protected], Williaml-205 Cuchara - Ruh residence
RECEIVED
MAY 2 I 2Ùi4
Del Mar DRB,CITY OF DEL MAR
PTANNING DEPARTMENT
I want to extend my support for the Ruh project located at 1205 Cuchara. While I do not live in the immediate vicinity I
am familiar with the property and have been to the residence on a number of occasions. The plans being submitted foryour review are considerably different from the originals. Through the CPP process the Ruh's plans reflect many
changes to accommodate the surrounding neighbors. The footprint of the home is the same as the existing residence,
the additional square footage is all underground, and the roofline is respective of the neighbors views.
The plans for this residence will be a significant improvement for the neighborhood
Sincerely,
Gregg Wolfson964 Crest Rd
Del Mar, CA92OL4
Gregg WolfsonVice President/GMLocal Media San Diego6160 Cornerstone Ct. East, Suite 150San Diego, CA 92121(Ph) 858-888-7072(Fax) [email protected]
1
Joseph Smith
From:Sent:To:Subject:Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:Flag Status:
(.tì \:l \1. llr-ril.,.
[email protected], May 29,2014 4:3L PM
Joseph SmithRuh Exterior Lighting AmendmentExterior Light Fixture Amendment - 1205 Cuchara.pdf
Follow upFlagged
RECEIVED
MAY 2 I 2014
CITY OF DEL MAR
PI.ANNING DEPARTMENT
Hello Joseph
I wanted to forward you an amendment that we made to our exterior lighting fixtures. These are just thefixtures attached to the house and not the landscape lights. We made the change to be more "dark sky" /"good neighbor" compliant. We were going to hand these out at the meeting yesterday.
I also included a 4" LED can light spec that better shows the Lumen rating and spectrum for our canlights. A DRB member was visiting the site and during discussions he mentioned that he was interested toknow what the lumens were for our cans.
Thanks JosephSee you next Wednesday.Dorian
Dorian Lytle
Architectural DesignFlagg Coastal Homesm 858-361-7776
FLACG COASTAL HOMESItì l+ \ll'\ l-l I S'l lt I I l.
t r-f l(.ì\ \ l)r.f, t \ l,ll 'ì ll \ I \ $lll.{ll l. (ólÐ) hr)(i l lrlrì I.\.\ l6tr)ì I 3i l5rlrr üfåry
t
Ru h Residence
1205 Cuchara Drive, Del MarDRB-14-04 /LCL4-07 / CDP-14-04
Exterior Light Fixture Amendment
(For fixtures attached to the exterior of residence)
Product Spec Sheet
5-563l-DS - The Savoy House Dunston DS Outdoor Wall Light
http://www.1800lighting.com/scripts/item_specsheet.cfm?itemid:18961669
Product Specifications & Details
¡ Height: 9.50"o Width: 11.00"r Weightt 1.76r Connection: Hardwireo UL Listing: Wet Locationsoo liantoo Number of Bulbs: Ie Lamping: Medium Base 100 Watt
I of I 512712014 9:45 PM
@usTEt¡
EIIJERiìY STAF
Job Name:
Catalog #:
Job lrrfornration Type:
4" CREE LED Can Fixture
11-4c-LED-NlC4" New ConstructionCeiling Cut-out : 4-1l4"
FEATURES
For lC / NonlC application
Air{i9htDimmable
1 1-4c-LED-RIC4" RemodelCeiling Cut-out : 4-114"
FEATURES
For lC / Non-lC application
Air-Tight
Dimmable
DIMENSIONS
New Work
25-1tZ'(650mm)
l0-7/8'(27s mml
Remodel
+3/4'(l2l mm)
(160 mm)
12.)1A',
(12lmm)(103 mm)
TRIMS - Approved for wet location
1 1-4T-LED-BW
CosthessLighting lnc. - Commercial Lighting Store
www,<ostlessllghtlng,com - Phone: (866) 63 3 -6883 Fox: (866)-699-8099
FEATURESHousing
Single wall aluminum housing gasked for lC / Airtight in insulated ceiling
Housing can be adjusted for ceiling thickness up to1-3/8',
Junction Box
Listed for through branch circuit wiringContains seven 7/8" knockouts and four Romexplyouts with Romex cable clamp.
Ground wire provided on J-Box
Hanger Bars / New ConstructionPre-installed Real nail easily installs in regularlumber, engineered lumberHanger bars are adjustable from 1 3-518" to 25" andcan be repositioned 90 degree on plaster frame
Mounting Frame / New ConstructionGalvanized steel construction
RemodelClipsFour remodel clips secure housing and accommodate1/2" and 5/8" ceiling materals
LED Engine10 - 100 dimmable with a dimmer swítch for CFL
Heat sink and aluminum board for low heat operation of highpower LED chip.
4000K (r200) Color temperature, 82 CRI
Produce 540 - 580 lumens output from luminaire, operating by 700m4connect.
Use 1.2W High power LED
LED Power Supply Driver
Class 2 Constant current LED driver, 700m4Forl2QV,50-60HDriver installed on junction box door for easy access from belowceiling.
Quick Connect "Push in Terminal"Three "Quick connectors" for fast and easy wiring
Lisitng
cUL "Wet Location"
1 1-4T-LED-FLWhite Flush Lens Trim
6-1 tA',
ó0mm
ç t4'
11-4T-LED-WRWhite Reflector Trim
4" CREE LED Can Fixture
f hi fì'ìr'Í.lirfL
@usrED
Jol¡ lnfotmation: Type:Job Name:
Catalog #:
PHOTOMETRICSReflector - 3OOOK LEDLamp:10 3OOOK LEDs Total Watts : 13W
CANDELAS900
80"
70.60"
500
40"30"
200
1o"
oo
o. Hodzohtål Plåne
Baffle - 3OOOK LEDLamp:1O SOOOK LEDS Total Watts :13W
CANDELAS900
800
700
600
500
40"30"
200
loooo
69
Flush Lens - 3OOOK LEDLamp:10 3OOOK LED5 Total Watts : 12W Lumens 650
CANDELAS900
80"
70.600
50"
40"30"Zo"
10"
oô
1.27
10 33
23.99
56.56
t03 91
159.52
212.75
248.9A
269.OO
276.15
o-40"o-600o-90"
90- 1200
90-130"90- 1500
90- 1AO"
o-laoo
206.48
323.44
496.53
55a.31
1.14
4.O1
5.54
6.a7
565.r A
36.5
57.2
47.9
9aa.6
.7
1
1.2
roo
36.5
57.2
47.9
9a.a
.6
-7'I
'1.2
loo
ZONAL LUMEL SUMMARYZoie Lumeh góLamp gtFlxture
o-
Total Luminaire Efficiency = 1OO9ó
ZONAL LUMEL SUMMARYZone Luhen 96lãhp 96Flxture
Lumens 565
Lux distance Curve
1.Om
2.oñ
3.Om
Beam angle ofC75pl¿ñe€7.78
67
4.76
22.21
509245.67
124.45
16ó.90
206.56
234 2A
254.59
266.21
198.64
315.72
522.1a
641.03
4.67
5.65
7.27
4.62
649-65
30.6
48.6
ao.3
94.6
.7
ô
l.l1.3
99.9
30.6
44.6
aoA94.7
.7
.9
1.1
1.3
100
o-300o-400o-600o-900
90-120"90-130090-15()090- 1AO"
o- 1800
Total Luminaire Efñciency : 99.9o/o
1.Om
2Om
3.Om
Beàm àngle of cplàhe96l2
Lux distance Curve
200
266
Lumens 565
ZONAL LUMEL sUMMARYZone Lumen .lâLamp %FlKure
207
276
1.27
t o.33
23.99
56 56
1()3.9t
159.52
212,75
24A.9A
269.OO
276.15
206.44
123.44
496.53
558.3 r
3.14
4.O1
5.54
6.47
565.1 A
36.5
57.2
a7.9
9aa.6
.7
1
1.2
too
36.5
57247.9
94.8
.6
.7
1
1.2
100
o-30"o-40ao-600o-90"
90- 120"
90-130090- 150"
90- lAOo
o- 1ao"
'l.Om
2.Om
Costluslighting lnc. - Conmerclal Lighting Storewvw.costlesslÍghting.com - Phone: (866) 613 -6881 Fox: (866)-699-8099
69 O4lx
f 0-6alx
600
50"
40c
30.
70222 4ocm
66.551x
29-5alx
Total Luminaf re Efnclency = 1OO9ó
3-Oh
Beam angle ofC75 plàne :
Jose Smith
From:Sent:To:Cc:
Subject:
Laurie Blasingame <[email protected]>
Tuesday, June 03, 201-4 10:34 AM
Joseph SmithJohn OBrien
Design Review: 1205 Cuchara
City of Del Mar Planning Dept & Design Review Board -
On Wednesday, May 28,2OI4,lattended the Design Review Board meetingto speak in favor'of the projecton 1205
Cuchara. After3hoursthemeetingwasadjournedtoJune4thwhichwouldincludethediscussionofthe1205project' I
am unable to attend this upcoming meeting as lam scheduled to fly out of San Diego that afternoon.
The height of the project is higher than we would have liked, but with the removal of a tree and the under grounding of
the wires we believe our view will still be very nice, We like the design of thls new home and would like to see it built.
During the last meeting I heard a lot of talk regarding landscaping covenants. We think this is an excellent idea to be
applied to 1205 Cuchara in order to protect our view from future landscape overgrowth. We want to make sure that no
trees or shrubs will be planted in the future that willgrow to a mature height of 10 ft or above.
I spoke to John O'Brien about this issue and he was very positive in his response. He said he has worked with
landscaping covenants before and stated he would speak to the applicants Bill and Lisa Ruh very soon' John stated it
would not be a problem to get going on executing such an agreement and we would like the Design Review Board to
facilitate the creation of this covenant.
Thank you very much,
Laurie Blasingame694 Rimini Rd
Del Mar, [email protected]
1