May 3,2017

RHCHf,VEDl'lirlY Cl3 20lT

City of Del MarAclrninistrative Services Dept.Dear Design Reveiw Board Members,

Thank you for all your time and energy that you volunteer for our precious community . Guidingus through all the decades of change the board has faced many challenges and the resultsspeak for themselves in the world class city we cherish today. Del Mar is always moving forwardbut we stay true to our original community values established when I moved here in the early1970's. We are not the isolated town we were, but we have retained the charm and characterthat makes Del Mar so livable and desirable today.

Today I am writing you to express my concerns about DRB 1 6-047.

1. The Ehrenfelds seem to be ignoring the concerns of their neighbor's to the west, Mr. andMrs. Grant, about obvious privacy issues that they and I have. My property is 1010-1012Stratford Ct.. lt's unseemly and inapproprate to put the primary leaving space on the secondstory and should be a non-starter. The last thing we need is having people peering into ourprivate lives from some elitist perch overhead so they can command a view over theneighborhood. Please make sure their design takes into consideration the privacy of theirneighbors and place the primary leaving area on the ground floor,

2. My other major concern again deals with their primary living area being on the second floor.Over the decades the Ehrenfelds have continuously subjected all of us who have tried to get

a DRB permit to their view corridor demands to the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollarsand loss of use of our own properties because of their objections. I can only imagine howhorrible it will be if they have a commanding view over the entire neighborhood! We won't beable to grow any trees without the threat of a civil action from the Ehrenfelds because it blockstheir view, which by Del Mar code give them that protection. Not to mention my ability to developmy own property as everone else does. Let's make sure this project is fair to all of us who havesuffered from the Ehrenfelds constant pressure and put the primary living space exactly wherethey have their view corridor that we all have made sacrifices for over the last 30 years.

Although the Ehrenfeld's application preceeds the new direction the DRB process has takennow, let's follow the spirit of the new system and make sure that the Ehrenfelds first andforemost take their neighbors concerns seriously and modify their design to put the primaryliving space on the ground floor. Only then can we address the other issues of thedevelopement.

Thank you for your consideration

Regards, Gregory Beckham

858- 481 - 9805

Archived: Thursday, June 22, 2017 12:45:00 PMFrom: Evan LanganSent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 8:45:50 AMTo: Rick Ehrenfeld - PrivateCc: Breann GuzmanSubject: RE: Red dot DRB Item #1Importance: Normal

Good Morning Rick,

Thank you for your correspondence. We’ll see that it’s included in the record and forwarded on to theBoard for review.

Evan Langan, AICPAssociate PlannerCity of Del Mar, Planning & Community Development Department

(Temporary City Hall) 2010 Jimmy Durante Boulevard, Suite No. 220Del Mar, CA 92014

(858) 793-6144 (direct)elangan@delmar.ca.us

From: rick ehrenfeld [mailto:rick.ehrenfeld@gmail.com]Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 8:29 AMTo: Evan Langan <elangan@delmar.ca.us>Cc: Breann Guzman <bguzman@delmar.ca.us>Subject: Red dot DRB Item #1

Evan,Could you please distribute this attachment to the Board members?Thanks,Rick Ehrenfeld

Comments regarding the Del Mar Public View Assessment Visual Study for the project at 220 10th Street.From: Rick & Joy Ehrenfeld

We have concerns regarding the Del Mar Public View Assessment Visual Study for the project at 220 10th Street. Our first concern is that the use of enlargements is misleading. Photos in general define a viewing area, and this alone can produce an editorialized image; when you “zoom in” and further focus the viewer, this effect can be extreme. The framing of an image and the selective cropping can change the impact of an image entirely; in this case the enlarged images are highly misleading. This “zooming in” on story poles will distort any project.

Our second concern is that Examples 4, 5 and 6 (the pictures from C,D and E) are presented without showing the impact of the screening vegetation.. The report draws the conclusion that from each of these positions, “Impacts of the approved landscape privacy screening cannot be assessed at this location. A portion of the ocean views will be blocked as a result of the proposed development.” We think to draw any conclusions regarding the project blocking views without considering the screening vegetation is potentially inaccurate.

Here are a couple of examples of the analysis we did based on this study:

Narrative analysis of Point E: if you are viewing the project from Point E across CDM at 10th Street, you are about 300 feet from the screening vegetation, and your eyes are about 10 feet above the top of the vegetation (camera at 152, trees at 142). The viewing angle drops about 10 ft over a 300 foot distance, that's about 3.33 ft for every hundred feet of travel. This is a very shallow angle. Our proposed house is about 30 feet beyond the screening vegetation; you would expect a drop of around 1 foot in that distance. The vegetation is at 142, our story poles are at 141. Based on this and some graphic analysis, we would say the the poles would not be visible from Point E. We have a graphic analysis that we can share with board members and the public when you visit.

The next few pages are the analysis we did for the PUBLIC VIEW POINT B – TOWN HALL OVERLOOK. This is based on the screening vegetation being shown as the line at 142. The percent of view blocked – based on a calculation of the enlarged area – is under 3%. The other viewing spots are further away and/or lower, so you would expect the blockage to be less that 3%.

1) We put a grid over the picture (in this case their enlarged image)

2) Then we filled the visible ocean with blue.

3) We counted the blue squares 256 – they represent the water still visible. Counted the gray squares above the dotted yellow line – 8 – they represent the portion of ocean blocked by the project. Based on this there are 264 (256 + 8) squares of view, 8 are blocked by the project – 256 are not blocked by the project - the percentage of the view blocked by the project is around 3%.

4) We put this picture into the context of the entire picture, and the percent of blockage will be less – there's more ocean unblocked.

Archived: Friday, June 23, 2017 10:52:20 AMFrom: Gloria GarrettSent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 5:45:21 PMTo: Breann GuzmanSubject: Re: Email to DRBImportance: Normal

Thanks, Breann. Please convey the message that I'm available from 2-6, Saturday through Tuesday. I'd liketo request a day's notice if possible.

All my best,Gloria

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 22, 2017, at 1:46 PM, Breann Guzman <bguzman@delmar.ca.us> wrote:

Gloria,

Feel free to send me any correspondence that you would like the DRB to receive. Iwill be sure to distribute it as soon as possible.

Best,

Breann GuzmanAssistant PlannerCity of Del MarPlanning Department1050 Camino del MarDel Mar, CA 92014-2698Phone: (858) 755-9313, Ext. 1113Email: bguzman@delmar.ca.us

Please note that as of June 6, 2016, City Hall has temporarily moved to 2010 Jimmy Durante Blvd, Suite 120 during constructionof 1050 Camino del Mar. Mailing address, phones and email remain the same.

This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here to report this emailas spam.