Agenda, first session — Del Mar City Council, September 5, 2023

Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda
Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
And via teleconference
111 Eden St.

Bar Harbor, ME 04609
September 5, 2023 City Council Meeting

INFORMATION RECEIVED

AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA

WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA QUESTIONS/ANSWERS
SEPTEMBER 5, 2023
Item 2- List of Demands

1. Pump Loan. Can we have some more detail on the check for $444, 017.01 to the State Water Resources Board for the 21st Street pump loan? What is the total loan amount and when will it be paid off?
Staff Response: In February 2010, the City entered into a finance agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board for financial assistance for the replacement of the 21st Street Sewer Pump Station in the amount of $5M plus accrued interest provided through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The total draw amount was $4,997,485.

Annual payments of $344,017, which began on August 1, 2013, are to be paid through August 2032 at an interest rate of 1.9% plus 1% service fee per annum. The current balance of this loan is $2,691,088.

Item 4 – Agreement for City Council Retreat Facilitation Services

1. Please confirm paragraph 8 re: "Confidentiality" does not prevent the public from attending or the city from reporting out about the session.

Staff Response: Section 8 of the Agreement does not prevent the public from attending the Council Retreat or the City from reporting out about the session. The City Council Retreat is a publicly noticed meeting of the City Council and is open to the public.

Attachment B, the draft agenda, notes time for public comment during the Retreat. A summary report out of the outcomes at a subsequent public meeting would be allowed and has historically been the City Council’s practice.

Item 7 – First Amendment to Agreement with West Coast Arborists for As-Needed Citywide Tree Management and Maintenance Services

1. When West Coast removes a tree (see agreement section 1.14) do they go through the tree removal permit process where required for protected trees? Staff Response: Public Works Department obtains a Tree Removal Permit for each tree, before scheduling the removals with West Coast Arborist.

2. The watering provisions for new trees by truck (see agreement section 1.19) do not specify if the water is to be reclaimed from the access on via de la Valle--can we require the use of reclaimed water for the truck watering? Staff Response: Yes. If the City chooses to use these watering services, the Contractor will charge $118.55 per hour, and use whatever source of water as directed by the City.

Item 8 – Approval of a Task Order with Michael Baker International to Perform a Lead Water Service Line Inventory

1. Does this include identification of reclaimed water lines? 1 September 5, 2023 Items 2,4,7-10, 16-18
Staff Response: No. The EPA does not consider reclaimed water pipelines to be drinking water.

2. Does it include water lines on the fairgrounds in the City of Del Mar? Does it include city service lines outside the city limit for the fairgrounds, or other users? Staff Response: The inventory will include all potable service lines to the Fairgrounds.

The City does not have any service lines outside the City limits.

3. Does it include water lines (if any) on the north bluff that are served by Santa Fe Irrigation District (SFID)?
Staff Response: No. Those service lines will be included in SFID’s inventory.

Item 9– Approval of Professional Services Agreement with Buckman Infrastructure Group, Inc. for 2023 Pavement Condition Assessment and Five-Year Pavement Management Plan

1. The scope of services states in part that the scope includes, "Surveying 25 miles of Arterial, Collector, Local and Alley streets." Will the survey include bike lanes in addition to the vehicle travel ways? In some situations, the vehicle travel way may be fine, but there may be issues in the bike lane.

Staff Response: Bike lanes are considered part of the road and will be included in the assessment. In addition, staff has a specific annual “Bicycle Lane “ program where staff inspects all bicycle lanes and makes repairs, when necessary.

Item 10– Award of Construction Contract with Portillo Concrete, Inc. for the Beach Colony Pedestrian Improvement Project

1. Are there ramps already at the target locations that don't meet current standards? If so, how and why were they installed non-compliant? If that's not the case, are these new ramps?
Staff Response: The existing pedestrian ramps were installed up to 30 years ago and do not meet current ADA Standards. ADA Standards have changed over the years, so it is assumed that ramps met the required standards at the time they were previously designed and installed.

2. Is this something the City is required by law to do now, or is it discretionary and more just good practice?
Staff Response: The City is required to maintain an accessible path of travel. All new construction and altered facilities are required to be in compliance with current ADA standards. For older out-of-compliance locations, the City is required to administer an ADA Transition Plan to fix ADA non-compliant issues. The City’s ADA Transition Plan has fixed/replaced over 150 pedestrian ramps over the last 13 years. 2 September 5, 2023 Items 2,4,7-10, 16-18

3. Would I be correct to assume that activating the additional tasks, if we have the money, will result in cost savings vs doing them separately later? Staff Response: Yes, the bid results showed a cost savings as evidenced by the reduced unit cost per pedestrian ramps for the alternate bid items as opposed to the base bid items. It is anticipated that the lower cost for the alternate bid items is likely due to the absence of a mobilization charge. Biding the alternate bid items out as a separate project would include a future mobilization charge and likely result in a higher cost.

Item 10– Approval of Agreement with Civic Solutions, Inc. for Contract Planning Services

1. It looks from the scope of work that these folks will interact with the public, answer calls, work the counter, etc. What assurance do we have that they will know enough about Del Mar to do these tasks properly? Is there any ability to temporarily bring back one or more of our planners who knows Del Mar but who has departed? Staff Response: Consistent with the City’s standard practice for managing contract professional services, Del Mar Planning staff will oversee all work completed by Civic Solutions to ensure accuracy and continuity of service to the public. The City is exploring all staffing options to support the Planning Department. The City brought on one retired annuitant to support the Planning Department with processing encroachment permits. We have explored opportunities to bring on past employees as retired annuitants or as permanent or temporary employees, but have determined that is not feasible at this time.

Item 16 – Introduction of an Ordinance to Implement Housing Element Program 1F Relating to the Regulation of Manufactured Homes

1. The staff report says manufactured housing will be subject to "…Chapters 30.04 and 30.86 governing zoning and Chapter 23.16 relating to moving buildings." Later as a note in one of the charts on page 2 it says they are subject to Design Review Board (DRB) review under DMMC Chapter 23.08. Shouldn't this also be recited up front along with the other sections?
Staff Response: Proposed manufactured homes are subject to the same permit process as applicable to conventional single dwelling units, although not specifically identified in DMMC 23.08. In most cases, DRB permit processing is required. However, there are some circumstances where the City is preempted from requiring discretionary permit review due to State law requirements (i.e., SB 9 and ADU laws) that limit local review to staff level administrative permit processing. This is stated within the applicable DMMC sections.

2. Do mobile homes qualify as "manufactured housing" if placed on a permanent foundation?" Seems they would under the definition: " Manufactured home means a single dwelling unit constructed wholly or partially off-site that is installed on a permanent foundation system, and which is certified in compliance with the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, and compliant with Section 18551 of the California Health and Safety Code." 3 September 5, 2023 Items 2,4,7-10, 16-18
Staff Response: In Del Mar, manufactured homes are required to be placed on a permanent foundation and connected to utilities. Staff did not include the term “mobile home” in the definition of “manufactured home” under the proposed Ordinance to avoid any confusion with the City’s regulations relating to mobile home parks.

Additionally, while manufactured homes and mobile homes are often used interchangeably, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) distinguishes a manufactured home as follows:

A manufactured home (formerly known as a mobile home) is built to the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (HUD Code) and displays a red certification label on the exterior of each transportable section. Manufactured homes are built in the controlled environment of a manufacturing plant and are transported in one or more sections on a permanent chassis. https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/housing/rmra/mhs/faqs Because the proposed Ordinance makes reference to compliance with the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, it was determined that the definition of “manufactured home” should be consistent with HUD’s use of the term.

Moreover, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 18000 under the Manufactured Housing Act of 1980:
(2) Confusion exists among consumers, enforcement agencies, lenders, and others in the housing industry regarding the difference between “manufactured housing” and “mobile homes.” All single-family factory-constructed housing built on or after June 15, 1976, that is in compliance with the standards of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development promulgated under the federal National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 5401 and following) are manufactured housing or manufactured homes, not “mobile homes” and, as such, often are subject to additional benefits. (3) Continued use of the term “mobile home” in various statutes, as well as the implication that the terms are interchangeable, exacerbates the confusion between the two products and deters affordable financing, discourages use in certain localities, and perpetuates incorrect perceptions as to codes and standards. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&di vision=13.&title=&part=2.&chapter=1.&article=
Various State of California agencies, including the Board of Equalization, also distinguish manufactured homes from mobile homes, as follows:

Although they may generally have the same meaning, for California property taxation purposes, the term mobile home is now obsolete and was changed to manufactured home in Revenue and Taxation Code section 5801 in January 1992. However, the term mobile home park remains a correct term for a community of manufactured homes. 4 September 5, 2023 Items 2,4,7-10, 16-18
https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/faqs/manfacthomes.htm
Therefore, for purposes of clarity and consistency with the above use and distinction of manufactured homes from mobile homes, the proposed Ordinance only includes manufactured homes within the definitions and regulations.

3. Would manufactured housing be allowed in any of the Specific Plan areas--Plaza, Hotel, 941, Carmel Valley?"
Staff Response: Manufactured homes are allowed in all zones that allow single dwelling units (one primary dwelling unit per lot) as an allowed use type. The Carmel Valley Precise Plan (CVPP) is a zone that allows single dwelling units. The Plaza Specific Plan (PSP), Hotel Specific Plan (HSP), and 941 Specific Plan do not specify single dwelling units and/or manufactured homes as an allowed use and therefore are not allowed.

4. As a practical matter, how will DRB review be applied? Will there be the ability to require changes in color, materials, to require articulation, etc.--the typical DRB stuff? Don't manufactured units come pretty much "as is?" Can Del Mar issue guidelines in advance before people make a purchase commitment? Staff Response: Section 23.15.040 of the proposed Ordinance governs the architectural review requirements for manufactured homes. State law requires the City to apply the same development standards to a manufactured home as would apply to a conventional single dwelling unit on the same lot, with the exception of certain architectural requirements. Therefore, like all single dwelling units in the City, a manufactured home will be subject to a discretionary design review permit process in accordance with Chapter

23.08 (unless otherwise specified by State law). With respect to architectural requirements, including roof overhang, roofing material, and siding material, the City may impose these requirements on a manufactured home even if similar requirements are not imposed on a conventional single dwelling unit. All other architectural requirements must be the same as those applied to a single dwelling unit on the lot.

Item 17 – Report on Items Related to Development of Short Term Rental (STR) Policies and Regulations Including California Coastal Commission (CCC) Actions and Court Decisions and Ongoing STR Data and Information Collection

1. The staff report recites at page 12-13 of the report the 6th Cycle Housing Element Policies it contends apply. But, these are all housing policies not visitor serving policies. A weekend stay by a visiting family is not "housing" any more than a hotel is. It seems to me the relevant Housing Element policies are those that address preservation of the existing housing stock, and Del Mar 's high number of housing units "lost" to STRs and 2nd homes that are off the long-term housing market, which the staff acknowledges is an issue.

Staff Response: The City’s Housing Element housing policies were identified to help inform pending policy decisions relating to the time, place, and manner of STR operations that will be allowed. The Housing Element policies cited in the agenda report are specific to the use of dwelling units for housing purposes. As referenced in the agenda report, the 5 September 5, 2023 Items 2,4,7-10, 16-18
policy intent of Housing Element Program 5C, which is the only housing policy that relates specifically to STRs, is to reduce current vacancy rates in dwelling units that are reported as unoccupied with no long-term housing tenant.

2. Can staff identify which, if any, of the 16 reference jurisdictions is entirely in the coastal zone like Del Mar?
Staff Response: The City of Carpinteria is located entirely in the coastal zone like the City of Del Mar. The cities of Dana Point, Laguna Beach, and Trinidad are each located almost entirely in the coastal zone. Other cities that are located partially in the coastal zone include Newport Beach (47% in coastal zone), City of Pismo Beach, Santa Barbara County, City of San Clemente (15% in coastal zone), Santa Cruz City (33% in coastal zone), Santa Cruz County, and San Mateo County. Palm Springs is located entirely outside of the coastal zone.

3. Why is Coronado not on the reference list?
Staff Response: While the City of Coronado is also a small city that is located in the coastal zone, the City of Coronado’s comparable STR regulations (that ban rentals for less than 26 consecutive days) are decades old and were not approved by the Coastal Commission as part of the City of Coronado’s certified LCP. As explained by the City Attorney, the courts have determined that STR regulations are a type of development regulation subject to Coastal Commission approval. This is why the agenda report instead identifies examples of local jurisdictions with regulatory approaches and policies that are consistent with the City Council’s Guiding Principles and prior direction for next steps, which will involve preparation of a Local Coastal Program amendment subject to Coastal Commission approval.

Item 18 – San Dieguito Drive Phase 1 Preliminary Engineering Assessment Presentation and Recommendation to Proceed to Phase 2 Engineering Design

1. The cost quote that private residents received in August 2022 to repair San Dieguito Drive was for $179,093. Please see Attachment A and further below. This was shared by the residents with City staff. This is significantly less expensive than the $2,000,000 cost that the City presented in July 2023 and the $1,300,000 as Alternative 3 for tomorrow. The City’s quote is 7+ times more expensive, over $1.1 million. As part of our public discussion tomorrow (9/5), I would like to get a comparison between the two costs/quotes and include reasons on why City staff thinks the scope of work being proposed by the residents bid isn’t acceptable, or potential tweaks/adjustments to make it acceptable.

Staff Response: City staff were provided a copy of the Peter’s paving quote some time ago, and advised residents that scope of work included in the Peter’s quote did not adequately address the significantly deteriorated road conditions including the road sub-base, would not bring the road up to County road standards in order to be accepted by the City and maintained as part of the City’s street/road system, only provided for a one-year warranty by the contractor, and would likely start to deteriorate shortly after the warranty period. The residents were also advised that as private road owners they have the right to contract with Peter’s, or any other contractor of their choosing for this work and continue to privately maintain the road 6 September 5, 2023 Items 2,4,7-10, 16-18
without City participation. In order for the City to participate financially in the project, the scope would need to bring the road up to County Road Standards (which are the road standards used by the City) so that the road maintenance could be assumed by the City following completion of the improvements, go through the legally required public bidding process per State and City Code, and provide a demonstrated public benefit. As indicated in the agenda report for this item, the costs identified for the four alternative designs provided by the City’s consultant are based on conceptual level designs. Therefore, the costs are rough, and will be refined during the final design stage of the project.

Staff have compared the Peter’s Paving quote and the Preliminary Engineering Assessment Cost Estimate for Alternative 3 and have found the following:

A. The Peter’s Paving quote has a disclaimer that specifically says “The Seller (Peters) is not responsible for underlying asphalt cracks or poor subgrade.” The existing condition of San Dieguito Drive has obvious underlying asphalt cracks and poor subgrade. Therefore, Peter’s would not have to warranty any of their work. Even if they did, the work only comes with a one-year warranty.

B. There is no indication that Peter’s Paving project’s drainage features were designed by a licensed civil engineer and may not work properly and cause flooding. The quote does not account for necessary grading to ensure the road drainage flows to the proposed gutter.

C. There is no indication that Peter’s Paving project was designed in accordance with County of San Diego Public Road Standards and Design Standards. The information provided to the City did not include a design for the road, only a written scope of work and costs, therefore the City was not able to review detailed design plans for what is proposed by Peters. As provided, the project would not result in the City being able to incorporate this private street into the City’s street Maintenance program.

The City’s Preliminary Engineering Assessment does account for public road standards and results in many additional line items 8 – 9 and 12 – 17 (Grading, Base Material, Gravel, Driveway Adjustments, Misc Utility Adjustments, Storm Drain Inlet, Misc Drainage Improvements, and Retaining Wall) than what was included in the Peter’s quote. The quantities for the road are greater due to the wider section proposed by the City to meet the minimum width for a public street (i.e. 20’ for fire access) and includes replacement of the structural section. The preliminary engineering assessment also accounts for utility and driveway adjustments which are needed when grading the road to ensure proper drainage to the curb and gutter.

D. The Peter’s Paving quote is more akin to a contractor’s proposal and does not include any of the required soft costs. This includes Preliminary Engineering Assessment line items 4 – 7 (SWPP, Design and Permitting, Plat & Legal, and Construction Management), which were not included in the Peter’s quote.

E. State and City code requires contractors to follow the public bidding process and contracting which includes prevailing wage, bonds and insurance, and warranty. The Peter’s Paving quote was for private work on a private street and does not appear to account for these public requirements.
7 September 5, 2023 Items 2,4,7-10, 16-18
F. The Preliminary Engineering Assessment line items 1-3 are estimated greater due to the increased scope proposed as part of the preliminary engineering assessment.

Furthermore, there is no indication how Peter’s Paving project will maintain access to the properties during installation of the centerline ribbon gutter.

G. MBI’s unit price estimates for pavement and gutter appear to be in line with Peter’s unit prices (Pavement: MBI ($2.9/SF) vs Peter’s ($5.5/SF) and MBI ($60/LF) vs Peter’s ($52/LF).

H. The Preliminary Engineering Assessment includes a conservative 30% contingency at the conceptual design stage, which will be refined as part of the final design, with updated costs presented to the City Council as that time. The Peter’s Paving quote does not include any contingency.

I. The Peter’s Paving quote is over a year old and expired and does not include subsequent inflation. It should be noted that a 2021 Peter’s Paving quote identified a cost of $85K, which was increased by Peter’s Paving to $179K in 2022. Following the trajectory of increase during that period, one would assume an updated 2023 quote could be as high as $350K or more. Again, the scope of work in the Peter’s Paving quote isn’t a comparable scope of work to what has been identified in Alternative #3 being recommended by staff and the City’s consultant as what is needed in order to meet public road standards.

2. I would note that there appear to be several roads in Del Mar that have a similar design to the existing swale design for San Dieguito Drive, including many of the roads that run off of Stratford, including Council Member Gaasterland’s street. I see in the Q&A in the staff report (question #4), that City staff notes an “exception is warranted” to the Complete Streets Policy that Council adopted in 2017. Since staff is recommending an exception for its proposed crown design, can Council also vote to approve an exception for the existing swale design, and/or the scope of work proposed in the residents’ private quote from Peters Paving?
Staff Response: The standard centerline crown design with rolled curb is a civil engineering recommendation and not a Complete Streets recommendation. The Complete Streets exception is regarding inclusion of sidewalk and parking. The justification for staff and consultant’s recommendation is covered in Resident Q&A question #14.

During Phase 2 Design, the consultant will conduct important hydrology studies that will help inform the final drainage design for the project and ensure it is sufficient. This information is critical to design of the project, so if the Council were to take action to approve a swale down the middle of the road prior to the completion of the hydrology study, there is a risk it would not be sufficient to meet the road drainage needs and could result in flooding.

3. Why is there no line-item detail in the $1,300,000 cost estimate for the City? The consultant, (MBI, who was paid $64,500 by the City to do this work so far) had to have some sort of inputs/assumptions to derive the $1,300,000 estimate. Why are those not being shared publicly as part of the agenda report? It is particularly concerning that this information is not being shared when we have a private quote for $179,093 that 8 September 5, 2023 Items 2,4,7-10, 16-18
has detail and is so much lower. I believe it is in the public interest to understand the details of why the City has produced a cost estimate that is so much higher. My concern, which is shared by many residents, is that this issue is not isolated to San Dieguito Drive and exists within many of our other public works and road repair projects. i.e. I would point to the recent email exchange between resident Tim Mills and the City Manager over his frustrations at trying to get his street repaired.

Staff Response: The preliminary cost estimate provided by the consultant is a rough estimate based on a conceptual design for the purpose of understanding general project costs for financial planning purposes. A detailed line item cost estimate is typically provided to the Council when the final project design is brought to the City Council for review and approval, which is a more accurate estimated cost based on final design not just a project concept. As requested, a line item detail for the preliminary cost estimate is included as Attachment B. 9 September 5, 2023 Items 2,4,7-10, 16-18
P.O Box 2285, Fallbrook CA 92088
Estimator : Dustin Firnhaber
Bid No. : 18544 Ken Sheppard et al.
1445 Oribia Road
Del Mar CA 92014 drkennysheppard@yahoo.
com, terlandinc@sbcglobal.

Email:

August 10, 2022
Phone: 858-449-3208 - Ken
Cell : 858-349-1452 - Majid
Ken Sheppard et al. ,referred to herein as Buyer
San Dieguito Drive, Del Mar - updated scope
labor and materials listed below upon the terms set forth herein for the construction of certain asphalt and/or related improvements (see below) located at:

Peters Paving & Grading, Inc. proposes to perform in a substantial and workmanlike manner, according to standard practices, the following:
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 Move in equipment for pulverizing, grading, paving and compaction Pulverize existing asphalt on San Dieguito Drive from Oribia Road to Racetrack View Drive and leave in place for base
Fine grade and compact existing subgrade for asphalt paving Place 100 LF of 24" root barrier in front of address 1445 Form & pour 6" thick w/ rebar 3' wide concrete swale down center of road - includes 4" recycled class two base under concrete swale only Pave with 4" compacted hot mix asphalt to match existing layout Place 170 LF of 6" machine berm in front of address 1569 to help control water flow
Stripe one stop and bar
supply traffic control for concrete swale and manpower to take down trash cans for two weeks so trash trucks don't drive on new concrete swale 1 1
1 1
1 17676
170
1 1
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Square Feet
Linear Feet
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
$1,200.00
$9,200.00
$2,900.00
$2,850.00
$53,000.00
$5.50
$20.00
$325.00
$9,000.00
$1,200.00
$9,200.00
$2,900.00
$2,850.00
$53,000.00
$97,218.00
$3,400.00
$325.00
$9,000.00
- Bid has been updated to follow scope of work provided on last job walk with Majidt - final site walk required prior to starting any work to shore up finalized scope from homeowners The above improvements will be performed by seller for the Sum of : $179,093.00 One Hundred Seventy Nine Thousand Ninety Three Dollars and 00/100 10% Down, Balance Upon Completion.

Payment Terms
Buyer understands price is only guaranteed if contract is signed by :

Contractors are required by law to be licensed and regulated by the Contractors State License Board, which has jurisdiction to investigate complaints against contractors if a complaint regarding a latent act or omission is filed within four years of the date of the alleged violation. A complaint regarding a latent act or omission pertaining to structural defects must be filed within 10 years of the date of the alleged violation. Any questions concerning the contractor may be referred to the Registrar, Contractors State License Board, Post Office Box 26000, Sacramento, California 95826.

Peters Paving & Grading,Inc. ,referred to herein as Seller, proposes to furnish buyer only the

TO BE PLACED ON WORK SCHEDULE THIS CONTRACT MUST BE ACCEPTED IN WRITING When signed by the Buyer, or his apparent agent, and by the Seller, this will constitute a firm contract between both parties hereto, for all labor and materials herein referred to, according to the terms and conditions herein referred to:

ACCEPTED:

Buyer:

Ken Sheppard et al.

SELLER:

By:

Peters Paving & Grading, Inc.

By:

SCOPE OF WORK UNITS UNITS OF MEASURE DOLLARS PER UNIT EXTENDED TOTAL ,

PLEASE SIGN CONTRACT AND RETURN WITH DOWN PAYMENT
TOTAL: $179,093.00
FAX 951.676.6678
BUYER: BID PROPOSAL AND CONTRACT
EMAIL - [email protected]
Seller is not responsible or liable for asphalt cracks, asphalt failures due to expansive soil, improperly compacted trenches, underlying asphalt cracks, or poor subgrade native materials. New asphalt should be seal coated a year after installation and every 3-5 years after for proper maintenance.

All work is guaranteed for a term of one year from date of completion.

Terms: Net cash due and payable when billed according to field measurements. Account will be delinquent if billed amount is not wholly remitted within (7) days from terms of contract. Delinquent principal balance shall bear interest, from the inception of the date of delinquency, at a rate of 2.0% per month. Buyer to pay Seller's reasonable attorney's fees incurred with or without suit to collect any amount unpaid. CREDIT CARD CONVENIENCE FEE OF 3.5% ON ALL CHARGES OVER $2,000.00.

Project Dates: September 30, 2022
Attn : Ken and Majid
Dustin Firnhaber
10 September 5, 2023 Items 2,4,7-10, 16-18

ATTACHMENT A
8/16/2023
Item No.

Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total

GENERAL
1 1 LS Mobilization/Demobilization and cleanup $50,000.00 $50,000 2 1 LS Demolition, Clearing and Grubbing $50,000.00 $50,000 3 1 LS Traffic Control Plan, Traffic Control Implementation and Construction Staging $60,000.00 $60,000 4 1 LS Implementation of Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Erosion Control $14,000.00 $14,000 $174,000

SOFT COSTS
5 1 LS Design and Permitting $200,000.00 $200,000
6 1 LS Preparation of Tract Maps $50,000.00 $50,000
7 1 LS Construction Management $150,000.00 $150,000
$400,000

SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS
8 250 CY Grading - Cut and Export $30.00 $7,500
9 375 CY Base Material Class II $50.00 $18,750
10 370 TON A.C. Pavement $170.00 $62,900
11 2,020 LF P.C.C. Rolled Curb and Gutter $60.00 $121,200 12 650 SF Gravel $2.50 $1,625
13 14 EA Driveway Apron $6,000.00 $84,000
14 1 LS Misc Utiity Adjustments $50,000.00 $50,000
15 1 EA Storm Drain Inlet and Lateral $15,000.00 $15,000 16 1 LS Misc Drainage Improvements $25,000.00 $25,000
17 390 SF Retaining Wall $140.00 $54,600
$440,575
$1,014,575
$304,373
$1,318,948

SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST WITHOUT SEWER IMPROVEMENTS

PRIVATE SAN DIEGUITO RD ROADWAY ASSESSMENT

CITY OF DEL MAR
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE OPTION 3 - WITHOUT SEWER (8/16/23)

SUBTOTAL

SUBTOTAL
1 11 September 5, 2023 Items 2,4,7-10, 16-18

ATTACHMENT B
8/16/2023
Item No.

Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total

SOFT COSTS
5 1 LS Design and Permitting $250,000.00 $250,000
6 1 LS Preparation of Tract Maps $50,000.00 $50,000
7 1 LS Construction Management $200,000.00 $200,000
$500,000

SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
18 860 LF 8" PVC Pipe (Standard) $260.00 $223,600
19 90 LF 8" HDPE Pipe with Fusion Welded Joints $325.00 $29,250 20 1 LS 2" HP Gas Line Relocation at Crossing $10,000.00 $10,000 21 4 EA 48" Diameter Precast Manhole per SDRSD SM-01 $11,000.00 $44,000 22 14 EA 4" Sewer Service Lateral Connections per SDRSD SS-01 $3,900.00 $54,600 23 14 EA Private Sewer Lateral and Septic Abandonment $13,000.00 $182,000 24 1 LS Miscelanous Utility Adjustments $75,000.00 $75,000 $618,450
$1,733,025
$519,908
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST WITHOUT SEWER IMPROVEMENTS $2,252,933

PRIVATE SAN DIEGUITO RD ROADWAY ASSESSMENT

CITY OF DEL MAR
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE OPTION 3 - WITH SEWER (8/16/23) TOTAL
30% CONTINGENCY

SUBTOTAL

SUBTOTAL
2 12 September 5, 2023 Items 2,4,7-10, 16-18
501 W. Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92115 Ph: 619.278.0701 Fx: 619.278.0705 www.jmhamiltonlaw.com
The Law Office of
Julie M. Hamilton
September 4, 2023
Honorable Mayor Tracy Martinez
City of Del Mar
1050 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
RE: Accessory Dwelling Units.

Honorable Mayor Martinez:

On behalf of my client Mark Wyland, I demand the City of Del Mar (“City”) rescind or hold in abeyance the building permit for the accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) proposed at 2610 Ocean Front. This ADU does not conform to the City’s ADU Ordinance or Certified Local Coastal Program. The City is under the misguided belief that Government Code section 65852.2 trumps your LCP and the Coastal Act. There is no authority for this position. The Coastal Commission has held the ADU laws do not supersede the Coastal Act since 2002 when section (j) was specifically added to Government Code section 65852.2 at the behest of the Coastal Commission.1 (Section (j) subsequently amended to section (l).) Government Code section 65852.2 subd. (l) states:
(l) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local government shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit applications for accessory dwelling units.

There is no case law that interprets this code section to mean anything other than the plain meaning, the ADU laws do not supersede the Coastal Act. What has been lost in this conversation is the intent of the voters when Proposition 20 was passed creating the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act and the Coastal Commission. The goal of Proposition 20 was to protect coastal resources. Proposition 20 specifically mandated that any development will be consistent with the objectives of the Coastal Act. (California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1 See Assembly Bill 1866
1 September 5, 2023 Item IV - Public Oral Communications Mayor Martinez
September 4, 2023

Page 2 ends

1972, §, subd. (c).) The objectives of Proposition 20 were further refined through the adoption of the Coastal Act in 1976. The goals of the Coastal Act are:
(a) Protect, maintain, and where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources. (b) Ensure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the state. (c) Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners. (d) Ensure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal-related development over other development on the coast.
(e) Encourage state and local initiatives and cooperation in preparing procedures to implement coordinated planning and development for mutually beneficial uses, including educational uses, in the coastal zone.
(Pub. Resources Code, §30001.5.)
This act has not been amended to prioritize ADUs or housing in the Coastal Zone. In fact, the Coastal Commission has a history of finding that housing is a low-priority coastal use.

Proposition 20 was not passed by the voters of California to provide more housing in the coastal zone. Rather, Proposition 20 was passed to protect coastal resources, public access and coastal dependent uses to the benefit of all residents of the state.

To now say the need for ADUs in the coastal zone supersedes the goals set by the voters of the State of California is unsupportable. The purpose of the ADU regulations is to provide affordable housing. Yet, there is no requirement ADUs in Del Mar be affordable. There is no evidence supporting furtherance of the goal to provide affordable housing. But there is certainly evidence the ADUs being ministerially approved are not consistent with the LCP.

Del Mar’s LCP is the road map for applying the provisions of the Coastal Act to Del Mar, the ADU laws do not supersede your LCP. Similarly, the City is not required to amend the LCP to accommodate the ADU laws. In the staff report prepared for the City’s LCPA to amend the ADU ordinance in 2021, the Coastal Commission staff was clear the Coastal Commission believes the LCP supersedes the ADU laws. Although HCD, your staff and the City Attorney may disagree; there is no law to support their position. The Government Code is clear the ADU laws do not supersede the Coastal Act and subsequently Del Mar’s LCP.

City staff has been issuing ministerial permits under the Government Code section 65852.2 as amended effective January 1, 2023 – this is illegal and in violation of subdivision (l) the Coastal Act and the Del Mar LCP. The City cannot rely on the Government Code to supersede the LCP because subdivision (l) clearly states it does not supersede the application of the Coastal Act. Similarly, the state cannot require Del Mar to amend its ordinance to 2 September 5, 2023 Item IV - Public Oral Communications Mayor Martinez
September 4, 2023

Page 3 ends

“harmonize” the Government Code with the Coastal Act. The clear language of the law states the Government Code shall not supersede the Coastal Act or application of the Coastal Act.

Until the City amends its LCP, the current LCP is the applicable law against which all ADU applications shall be reviewed. Any permits issued that conflict with the LCP should be rescinded or held in abeyance until the City conducts the review required by the LCP.

The ADU proposed at 2610 Ocean Front is not allowed under the municipal code or the certified LCP. The Del Mar Municipal Code (and certified LCP) does not allow ADUs on lots that do not meet the minimum lot size criteria of the underlying zoning. (DMMC §31.091.040.B.) The project site is located in the R-1-5B Zone where the minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet. (DMMC §30.15.070.B.) According to the tax rolls, the project site is less than 4,000 square feet; therefore, the project site does not meet the minimum lot size and an ADU is not allowed. The Del Mar Municipal Code also does not allow an ADU over 550 square feet in size; the proposed ADU is 694 square feet in size. (DMMC §30.91.040.H.) Finally, the Del Mar Municipal Code limits the height of new construction for an ADU to 14 feet, the proposed ADU is 26 feet high. (DMMC §30.91.040.L.)
The current ADU Ordinance does not allow this ADU and the City cannot rely on the Government Code to supersede the municipal code or the certified LCP. The City is under no obligation to amend its LCP; if Del Mar is not going to require ADUs to be affordable, there is little purpose served in amending Del Mar’s LCP. Similarly, there is no purpose served in allowing ADUs to supersede the LCP unless the ADUs are affordable. As it currently stands, Del Mar has an ADU ordinance that is consistent with the Coastal Act. Since the Coastal Act supersedes the ADU laws, Del Mar cannot be required to rely on the provisions of Government Code section 65852.2 rather than its own LCP. Del Mar must require that all ADUs are consistent with the municipal code and the LCP.

Continuing to approve ADUs that are not consistent with the LCP puts the City in a precarious legal position. Does the City want to enter into litigation against its own constituents because the City is not following its own laws and policies? The City Council is the decisionmaker, and the City Council must decide what is best for the City of Del Mar. Either follow the ADU Ordinance that is in the certified LCP or seek certification of a new ordinance that will further the policies of the Coastal Act and protect the coastal resources of the City of Del Mar.

This is a policy decision to be made by the City Council with appropriate advice backed by a thorough analysis of the law.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. I remain available if you have any questions or need additional information.

Respectfully,
Julie M. Hamilton
Attorney for Mark Wyland
CC: Client
City Attorney
3 September 5, 2023 Item IV - Public Oral Communications Red Dot Letter for Sept. 5, 2023, Del Mar City Council Meeting v2 An untenable position
It is disappointing that the City Manager could not or would not meet with me to understand my concerns. So I want to give you an example that troubles me:

Example: The CVPP zoning code provides for the restoration of preserved open space if construction should cause damage during the development of the area.

8.D. states, “Landscaping shall be limited to an informal planting of native plants…”
This is a limitation on what can be planted, not on what can exist in the whole open space. Inevitably, volunteer plants will appear without human involvement before, during, and after the development phase.

The staff interprets 8.D. as meaning that any nonnative plant that exists constitutes a code violation. This greatly enlarges the intent of the code.

It’s interesting to note that nine lots in Del Mar are the world’s only locations where deposition of a seed by a bird or a breeze is a code violation by the property owner. Then the City imposes fines and demands remedial action.

Something is wrong here.

The proper interpretation of the code needs to be established, preferably through discussion within the City rather than in the courts. I hope that after receiving this information you will arrange for the City Manager or a Council member to talk with me and then recommend a path to go forward.

Ken Olson
Torrey Point Road
1 September 5, 2023 Item IV - Public Oral Communications 1 Melinda Gould
From: Ann Williamson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2023 11:38 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: City Council September 5 Agenda Item 12 Red Dot CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
I strongly support having SANDAG conduct a robust transparent public outreach and participation process related to the LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project. There are a number of geological and practical concerns that should be investigated. One problem that has not been addressed is the biological and health hazards of removing the debris from the drilling.

Thank you.
---Ann Williamson
1352 Oribia Rd
1 September 5, 2023 Item 12
1 Melinda Gould
From: Camilla Rang <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 6:29 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: City Council meeting Sep 5, 2023, Item 17
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 write in regards to Short Term Rental regulations in Del Mar. I cannot think of a better way to destroy a town than to allow it to transfer into full time and unregulated STR. There will be no one at the City Council meetings, no one at the DRB or City Planning. In short, there won't be any residents that get involved in the city decisions to protect it against having only money making as its only goal.

I do understand that the conventional hotel rental does not fit everyone, so yes, some STR should be allowed, but highly regulated in amount and where. Perhaps grandfather in those who legally already have rented out as STR and then cap it. Once such a house is sold, the STR permission could go back into the pool and handed out to the next house owner in line.

Personally, I do not want any STR next to me. I want to live in a neighborhood where I know peoples' names, where I can ask them to take care of my cat while I'm out of town - and me in turn take care of their pets/plants etc when they are out of town. I want to live in a neighborhood where I recognize people when I'm ou for a walk and stop and chat to catch up. I do not want to live in a neighborhood where I'm the only permanent resident, where different people come and go and are on vacation mood 365 days a year.

Please keep STR highly regulated to save our town.

I support the following:
*The City should focus on a program that allows STRs in the Visitor, Commercial, Beach Commercial, and RC zones, in the Specific Plans Areas for L’Auberge and the 941 project, and for the timeshares at Wave Crest.
* The City can consider allowing very limited STR use in residential areas consistent with the historical transient rentals documented in the Community Plan, i.e. the historical rentals in the beach area for:

Summer race season rentals;
2 nd home owners who rent long-term for the off season and visit for the summer Limited STRs in the RM Zones where most STRs have historically occurred. * The city should:
1 September 5, 2023 Item 17
2 Continue to prohibit full time STRS in the R zones (except RC) and allow limited STR use in the RM zones;
Allow an updated version of the 28-7 program for the R zones, where the owner or a longterm tenant occupies the property most of the year; Require good neighbor policies for all STRs, enforceable and with teeth; Require a permit for all STR use;
Require TOT payment from all STRs;
Limit the number, density, and location of STRs to avoid over-concentration in any neighborhood;
Require all STRs to meet basic safety standards, to have adequate parking, and to post Neighbor Friendly rules and a 24 hour contact number for neighbors to address problems.

Sincerely,
Camilla Rang
2 September 5, 2023 Item 17
September 2, 2023
To: Mayor Martinez, City Council Members Druker, Gaasterland, Quirk, Worden, City Manager Ashley Jones
Red Dot Re: short term rentals
Residents in Del Mar are and have been allowed to rent their properties on a monthly basis, 31 days.

In the recent past short term rentals (STRS), with the ease of the internet, have in Del Mar become shorter in duration, even for overnight stays, a business promoted and organized by real estate professionals, investment owners and individuals to monetize properties without accountability: registrations, regulations/policies, rules of any sort, TOT obligations, neighborhood considerations, oversight or enforcement for violations.

While visitors are welcome, there are hotels in town and various areas with STRS business that in fact do register guests, have rules, provide oversize and pay TOT. There are STRS allowable at the Visitor, Commercial, Beach Commercial, and RC zones, in the Specific Plans Areas for L’Auberge and the upcoming 941 project, and for the timeshares at Wave Crest. For the R zones a 28-7 program for STRS was suggested. Time to review, reconsider and adopt this plan. It is fair for all. And again, residents are able to rent properties on a monthly basis. There is no need for the business of STRS to grow into a menace in our residential neighborhoods as they have in so many areas and cities.

Julie Maxey-Allison
Bradford Allison
10 Street
1 September 5, 2023 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: Ann Williamson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2023 11:50 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: City Council September 5 Agenda Item 17 Red Dot CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
I know the STRS problem is a difficult issue for Del Mar.

We have only stayed in short term rentals a couple of times. One time in Pacifica I thought the operation was well organized. The home owners lived upstairs and the renters were on the lower level of this split level home. Since the home owners were almost always home they had an interest in enforcing the rules: no visitors, usage of only one assigned parking space, no noise from TV after 10:00 pm. I think the rental probably helped this couple with some extra income and did not disturb the neighbors. Rules like this for Del Mar might work. If the owner is required to live on the premises they will be more likely to keep things quiet in the neighborhood. —Ann Williamson
1352 Oribia Road
2 September 5, 2023 Item 17
3 September 5, 2023 Item 17
4 September 5, 2023 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: Ralph "Bucky" DeMarco <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2023 10:55 AM
To: Mayor Tracy Martinez; Terry TG. Gaasterland; Dan Quirk; Dwight Worden; David DrukerPrivate; Ashley Jones; City Clerk Mail Box; Leslie Devaney Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: MORE STR LAWSUITs - Dwight Worden's 2023 White Paper RED DOT item 17 Attachments: Coastal Commission_Motion_to_Dismiss_Request__Jan. 24.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

The City's lawsuit against the Coastal Commission was unsuccessful and judgment was entered against the City by the Honorable Judge Wohlfeil in San Diego Superior Court. (See The City of Del Mar v. The California Coastal Commission Case# 37-2018-00039254-CU-WM-CTL). I have attached California Attorney General Becerra's and Deputy Attorney General Peterson's (the Coastal Commission's lawyers) Motion to Dismiss because Judge Wohlfeil relied upon my letter included in their motion as Exhibit A to make his ruling (see Motion attached below). Judge Wohlfeil immediately granted the Dismissal when he and the Attorney General's office realized Worden's deception exposed in my email.

The August 2023 Worden White Paper misleadingly and falsely claims that the city lost the Coastal Commission lawsuit on a CEQA technicality and that Resolution 2017-29 was not "invalidated". A blatant falsehood. Per the Attorney General Becerra: "this Court, the Honorable Katherine Bacal presiding, recently "invalidated" the City's resolution (2017-29) determining that short-term rentals (STRs) are a prohibited use in the City's residential zones (attached Motion to Dismiss page 2, lines 14/15)".

Councilperson Worden hid the fact from the Coastal Commission and their lawyers that his flawed and invalid "permissive code" argument was being challenged in a separate lawsuit. Please refer to Deputy Attorney General Haylee Peterson's Declaration in the attached Motion to Dismiss, page 10:
"I was not aware of the lawsuit or judgment prior to receiving Ralph DeMarco's email." Also page 2, line 17 in the motion from the Attorney General, "In its challenges to the Commission's decision in this case, the City repeatedly claimed that STRs are prohibited in the City's residential zones and that it has a "permissive" zoning code without mentioning that a challenge to both those contentions was pending." The City actually had already lost that lawsuit while making that laughable claim in court.

Worden's 2023 White Paper claims that the history is one of students in the school year and race rentals in the summer but nothing like the short term rentals now occurring. This completely ignores the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Worden gets caught up by his own words when he acknowledges in his email to Gina Matern "The subcommittee vote that you reference resulted in a 4- 4 tie which means "no action" not rejection." That Land Use Subcommittee document he is referring to memorializes that the Community Plan clearly contemplated daily/weekly STRs, involved a community discussion on STRs and STRs were voted on during the process at the time of adoption.

The 2023 White Paper completely ignores Judge Bacal's finding of facts that:
5 September 5, 2023 Item 17
2 1. There is substantial evidence that notwithstanding the Zoning Code, the City has long allowed STRs to operate.

2. STRs predate the City's incorporation.

3. When the Community Plan was being created, the Land Use Subcommittee did not adopt a proposal to "discourage transient (STRs)" in residential areas.

4.In June 2010, a measure to tax STRs (Proposition J) was placed on the ballot. The argument against Proposition J was that STRs were "part of the fabric of Del Mar and have never needed to be regulated.
etc.

In the current new lawsuits, Danielle Nicholas v. City of Del Mar Case No. 37-2023-00010328-CL-JRCTL and Gina Mattern v. City of Del Mar Case No. 37-2023-00010313-CL-JR-CTL the City has asked for a postponement to June 2024 because the City knows how weak their case is and wants to save face. The City offered to stop the citations and fines but the plaintiffs have said no and told the judge they want a trial now. In Bacal's courtroom it will be a guaranteed loss as she has already ruled in court that Del Mar's STR Resolution 2017-29 and Ordinance 934 and the Forbearance are legally unenforceable.

The 2016 White Paper's incompetent attempt to rewrite history was a loser from day 1 and has cost our city an estimated $1 million and still counting 7 years later. Ironically, the central legal strategy in the 2016 White Paper involved Worden's "permissive code" argument that STRs were never allowed, but his new 2023 White Paper doesn't even mention "permissive code" because the strategy has recently been decided as a loser in a court of law. See Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 142.

These lies designed to cheat our neighbors and citizens out of their grandfathering rights need to stop and we need to see a full public accounting of the costs so far.

Sincerely,
Ralph "Bucky" DeMarco
Del Mar Citizen
6 September 5, 2023 Item 17
1 XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
2 JAMEE JORDAN PATTERSON
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
3 HAYLEY PETERSON
Deputy Attorney General
4 State Bar No. 179660
600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
5 San Diego, CA 92101
P.O. Box 85266
6 San Diego, CA 92186-5266
Telephone: (619) 738-9311
7 Fax: ( 619) 645-2271
E-mail: Hayley [email protected]

NO FEE PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE§ 6103
8 Attorneys.for Respondent
Cal(fornia Coastal Commission
9 10
11 12
13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
14 THE CITY OF DEL MAR, a California
Charter City,
Case No. 37-2018-00039254-CU-WM-CTL
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
v.

THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL
COMMISSION, a public agency,

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION
Plaintiff, TO DISMISS; REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE; DECLARATION

OF HAYLEY PETERSON
Date: February 6, 2020
Time: 1 :30 p.m.

Dept: 73
Judge: The Honorable Joel R. Wohlfeil
Respondent. Trial Date: February 6, 2020 (Writ Hearing) ~-------------------' Action Filed: August 6, 2018
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS; REQUEST FOR ruDJCIAL NOTICE; DECLARATION OF HAYLEY PETERSON (37-2018-00039254-CU-WM-CTG)
7 September 5, 2023 Item 17
1 INTRODUCTION
2 The City admits that the Commission's decision has expired and the case is moot, but 3 argues that the Court should nonetheless hear the petition because the legal issues are capable of 4 repetition, yet evading review. This argument fails for two reasons. 5 First, because the Commission's decision has expired, the City will have to resubmit the 6 same or another LCP amendment to the Commission for review and consideration regardless of 7 what this Court decides. Because various options exist for the City to avoid the expiration of the 8 Commission's decision, the decision is capable of review; the City simply did not take advantage 9 of any of those options here. The City provides no authority for this Court or the Commission to 1 o stay or extend the Commission's decision after it has already expired. 11 Second, the issues raised in the petition are not "undeniably capable of repetition" as the 12 City contends because the factual and legal underpinnings of the LCP amendment at issue in this 13 case are likely to change before the Commission considers it again. This is due in part because 14 this Court, the Honorable Katherine Bacal presiding, recently invalidated the City's resolution 15 determining that short-term rentals (STRs) are a prohibited use in the City's residential zones. (A 16 copy of the 12/24/2019 Minute Order in Del Mar Alliance for the Preservation of Beach Access 17 and Village v. City of Del Mar, San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2017-00019864-CU-TT18 CTL is attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Hayley Peterson filed herewith.) In its 19 challenges to the Commission's decision in this case, the City repeatedly claimed that STRs are 20 prohibited in the City's residential zones and that it has a "permissive" zoning code without 21 mentioning that a challenge to both those contentions was pending. 22 Fb;1ally, the City requests leave to amend its petition to add a ·declaratory relief cause of 23 action. The City provides no explanation why such cause of action would not also be moot. In any 24 event, declaratory relief is not available to challenge an administrative action. 25 For these reasons, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the City's 26 petition for writ of mandate as moot.
27 28
2 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; DECLARATION OF HAYLEY PETERSON (37-2018-00039254-CU-WM-CTL)
8 September 5, 2023 Item 17
1 2 I.
3 ARGUMENT
REGARDLESS OF How THIS COURT RULES, THE CITY WILL HAVE To RESUBMIT

AN LCP AMENDMENT TO THE COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION, AND THE CITY HAS OPTIONS To A VOID MOOTNESS FROM ARISING AGAIN. 4 The City contends that the controversy between the parties is capable of repetition, but 5 evading review, and, therefore, the Court should exercise its discretion to hear the dispute. 6 However, neither this exception nor the others raised by the City applies. 7 The issues are not "capable of repetition, yet evading review." As discussed in the 8 Commission's motion, if the City chooses to resubmit an identical LCP amendment with all of 9 the same evidence in support of it, 1 the City has the option to request that the Commission not 1 O suggest modifications. (Motion at p. 3: 14-18.) In that case, the Commission would either approve 11 the LCP amendment as submitted or deny it; in either case, questions about the legality and 12 evidence supporting the Commission's 2018 suggested modifications would not arise. In 13 ~ddition, a Commission denial without suggested modifications does not have an expiration date. 14 The City also contends that the Cmnt should exercise its discretion to hear this matter even 15 though it is moot because other cities have undertaken similar actions. (Opposition at p. 4:3-9.) 16 Other California cities have adopted STR regulations, but the Commission's decision in each of 17 those cases turned on the overnight visitor serving accommodations available in the particular 18 jurisdiction as well as the specifics of the jurisdiction's proposed local coastal program policies. 19 The City cites California Coastal Commission v. Granite Rock Co. ( 1987) 480 U.S. 572, 20 578 in support of its argument that the issue is likely to reoccur. In Granite Rock, the issue before 21 the Court was the pure legal issue of whether federal law preempted the Commission's permit 22 requirements. Here, the City does not dispute that the STR regulations require the Commission's I 23 review and approval. Here, the issue is whether substantial evidence supported the Commission's 24 denial of the LCP amendment as submitted and approval subject to suggested modifications .. 25 26
27 28
1 As discussed in Section II below, even if the City submits an identical LCP amendment, the record before the Commission will change significantly unless, and likely even if, the City successfully appeals the Court's 12/26/2019 minute order invalidating the City's resolution and dismissing the City's permissive zoning claims. Even if successful, the long delay and likelihood that the City will need to take some action to comply with the order argue against this Court exercising its discretion to hear this case despite its mootness. 3 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; DECLARATION OF HAYLEY PETERSON (37-2018-00039254-CU-WM-CTL)
9 September 5, 2023 Item 17
1 Contrary to the City's argument, that is in large part a factual, not a legal, question. As discussed 2 in Section II below, the facts (and legal contentions) are likely to change significantly before the 3 City resubmits the LCP amendment.
4 The City also argues that the Court may grant the City a stay on the Commission's decision, 5 citing Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (g). (Opposition at p. 5:2-5.) However, 6 even if the Court were to do so now, it would be too late as nothing in the statute provides that a 7 stay issued after an administrative action has already expired reinstates the action. The 8 Commission does not dispute that the City could have sought a stay from this Court prior to 9 expiration of the Commission's decision; indeed, the Commission suggested in its motion that the 10 City could have and should have done that. (Motion, at p. 4:9-14.) 11 The issues before this Court are unique and likely to change, and no justification exists for 12 this Court to exercise its discretion to hear the matter. 13 II. THE ISSUES RAISED IN THIS CASE ARE UNLIKELY TO BE REPEATED BECAUSE THIS

COURT RECENTLY OVERTURNED THE CITY'S DETERMINATION THAT SHORT-TERM 14 RENTALS ARE A PROHIBITED USE IN THE CITY'S RESIDENTIAL ZONES, WHICH

DETERMINATION THE CITY RELIED UPON IN ITS CHALLENGE TO THE 15 COMMISSION'S ACTION.
16 Throughout its opening brief as well as in the opposition to the motion to dismiss the City 17 filed on January 17, 2020, the City relies upon its resolution interpreting the City zoning code as 18 prohibiting STRs as support for the LCP amendment as submitted and in opposition to the 19 Commission's suggested modifications. (E.g., Opening Brief [OB] a p. 1 :6-7, 3:1-5, 4:10-21, 20 4:24-26, 8: 15-17 ["Even though the effect of Ord. 934 is to allow and regulate a previously 21 prohibited use, the Staff Report continually characterizes the City's action as a 'restriction."' 22 (Bold and underline in original.)]; 17:12-14, 17-18, 26-27; 18:1-2, 12-15; Opposition to Motion 23 to Dismiss, at p. 2:8-9.) However, on December 24, 2019, this Court, the Honorable Katherine 24 Bacal presiding; found that the City violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 25 when it adopted the resolution. The Court also took issue with the City's permissive zoning code 26 arguments. As a result, the City will have to set aside the resolution and comply with CEQA 27 before considering it again. Because the City relies on the resolution to support its adoption of the 28 4
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; DECLARATION OF HAYLEY PETERSON (37-2018-00039254-CU-WM-CTL)
10 September 5, 2023 Item 17
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
LCP amendment at issue in this case, the legal and factual issues in this case are not "undeniably capable of repetition" as the City contends. (Opposition at p. 2:2-4.) As explained in the City's opening brief, in 2017, before submitting the LCP amendment to the Commission, the Del Mar Planning Commission responded to a request to interpret the City Zoning Code and clarify whether STRs are an allowed use in residential zones. (OB, at p. 4:6-7, citing AR 84.) Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission determined that because the Zoning Code does not define STRs it could not render an interpretation. (Ibid.) On appeal, the City Council determined that STRs are not permitted in the City's residential zones with the exception of the residential-commercial zone. (OB at p. 4: 10-21.) The City Council adopted Resolution 2017-29 "concerning an interpretation (Il 7-001) of the Del Mar Municipal Code regarding whether short-term rentals (STRs) are an allowed use within the City of Del Mar's residential zones." (AR 804-811.)
The Del Mar Alliance for the Preservation of Beach Access and Village filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging Resolution 2017-29. The petition alleges Resolution 2017-29 violates the CEQA and the Coastal Act. (Minute Order at p. 2.) On December 24, 2019, the Court, the Honorable Katherine Bacal presiding, granted the Alliance's petition. The Court rejected the City's arguments that it has a permissive zoning code and that the Resolution is a mere restatement of the law because STRs were already prohibited, arguments the City raises in this case as well. (Minute Order, at p. 2; see City's Opening Brief at p. 11 :7-13, 17-18.) The Court ruled as follows:

If, as the City contends, STRs were already prohibited under the Zoning Code, then the Resolution is not a restatement of the law as the Resolution allows STRs in the RC [residential-commercial] zone. The City acknowledges that CEQA review is required if the City is considering whether to allow and regulate STRs ....

There is also substantial evidence that notwithstanding the Zoning Code, the City has long allowed STRs to operate. [Citations to AR, establishing STRs "predate[] the City's incorporation" omitted.] When the Community Plan was being created, the Land Use Subcommittee did not adopt a proposal to "discourage transient occupancy" in residential areas. In June 2010, a measure to tax STRs (Proposition J) was placed on the ballot. The argument against Proposition J was that STRs were "part of the fabric of Del Mar and have never needed to be regulated." Proposition J did not pass. At that time, the City noted there were likely around 300 to 400 STRs. 5 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; DECLARATION OF HAYLEY PETERSON (37-2018-00039254-CU-WM-CTL)
11 September 5, 2023 Item 17
1 2
3 4
5 The Resolution effectively bans STRs from all non-residential areas. Alliance argues-and the City does not dispute-that such a ban could result in the construction of additional hotels and motels to serve visitors, exacerbate traffic and parking issues, and reduce access to coastal resources. It is also undisputed that concentrating STRs in the RC zone could result in environmental impacts related to traffic, overuse and beach erosion. Under these circumstances, the Resolution constitutes a project under CEQA and should have been reviewed accordingly. Thus, the petition for writ of mandate is granted.
6 (12/24/2019 Minute Order at pp. 2-3, citations to AR omitted.) 7 The City will need to set aside the Resolution and review it under CEQA before 8 considering whether or not to adopt it again or appeal the decision. Regardless of what action the 9 City takes, significant time will elapse before the City submits another LCP amendment related to 1 O STRs to the Commission for consideration. Given the environmental impacts identified by the 11 Court and the Court's rejection of the City's permissive zoning arguments, the factual and legal 12 arguments before the Commission will likely be significantly different. For that reason, the Court 13 should decline to exercise its discretion to consider this moot action. 14 III. THE COURT SHOULD NOT ALLOW THE CITY TO AMEND ITS PETITION TO ADD A

DECLARATORY RELIEF CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE THE SOLE MEANS TO 15 CHALLENGE A COMMISSION DECISION IS BY WRIT OF MANDATE, 16 The City argues that the Court should allow the City to amend its petition to include a 1 7 declaratory relief cause of action. The City does not explain why a declaratory relief cause of 18 action would not also be moot. In any event, the Court should deny this request because the sole 19 means to challenge the Commission's decision is by petition for writ of mandate. 20 "It is settled that an action for declaratory relief is not appropriate to review an 21 administrative decision. [Citations omitted.]" (State of California v. Superior Court (1974) 12 22 Cal.3d 237, 249.) The exclusive remedy to challenge the Commission's conditional approval of 23 an LCP amendment is through administrative mandamus pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 24 section 1094.5. (San Mateo County Coastal Landowners' Assn. v. County of San Mateo (1995) 38 25 Cal.App.4th 523,558; City o/Santee v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 713, 718; Rossco 26 Holdings Inc. v. State ofCal!fornia (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 642,654; City of Chula Vista v. 27 Superior Ct. (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 472,488; Pub. Resources Code,§ 30801.) 28 6
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; DECLARATION OF HAYLEY PETERSON (37-2018-00039254-CU-WM-CTL)
12 September 5, 2023 Item 17
1 Administrative mandamus is used to review actions or decisions of an administrative body 2 acting in a judicial capacity. (Code of Civ. Proc.,§ 1094.5; Temescal Water Co. v. Department of 3 Public Works (1955) 44 Cal.2d 90, 101.) The Commission performs a predominantly judicial 4 function when it reviews LCP amendments. (San Mateo County Coastal Landowners' Assn. v. 5 County of San Mateo, supra, 38 Cal.App.4th at p. 558; City of Chula Vista v. Superior Court, 6 supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 488.)
7 "It is settled that an action for declaratory relief is not appropriate to review an 8 administrative decision." (State of California v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 247.) 9 "Backdoor" challenges through traditional mandate and declaratory relief will not lie. (San Mateo 10 County Landowners' Assn. v. County qf San Mateo, supra, 38 Cal.App.4th at p. 558.) 11 There are important reasons to limit review of Commission actions to administrative 12 mandamus actions. In such actions, the only evidence before the Court is the administrative 13 record of the Commission's decision. (San Mateo County Landowners ' Assn. v. County of San 14 Mateo, supra, 38 Cal.App.4th at p. 558, fn. 27.)
15 The Court should deny the City's request to amend the petition to allege a declaratory relief 16 cause of action because such action will not alleviate the mootness issue and declaratory relief is 1 7 not a proper challenge to an administrative action. 18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 7
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; DECLARATION OF HAYLEY PETERSON (37-2018-00039254-CU-WM-CTL)
13 September 5, 2023 Item 17
1 CONCLUSION
2 For the reasons set forth in the Commission's motion to dismiss and above, the 3 Commission respectfully requests that the Com1 dismiss the City's petition for writ of mandate 4 and deny the City's request to amend its action to plead a declaratory relief cause of action. 5 Dated: January 24, 2020
6 7
8 9
10 Respectfully Submitted,

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California

JAMEE JORDAN PATTERSON
Supervising Deputy Attorney General

HAYLEY PETERSON
11 Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys/or Respondent
12 California Coastal Commission
13 SD2018102561
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 72 11 3892.docx
8 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; DECLARATION OF HAYLEY PETERSON (37-2018-00039254-CU-WM-CTL)
14 September 5, 2023 Item 17

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
2 Respondent California Coastal Commission respectfully requests that the Court take 3 judicial notice of the December 24, 2019 minute order issued by this Comi in Del Mar Alliance 4 for the Preservation of Beach Access and Village v. City of Del Mar, San Diego Superior Comi, 5 Case No. 37-2017-00019864-CU-TT-CTL. A true and correct copy of the Minute Order is 6 attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Hayley Peterson filed herewith. The minute order 7 constitutes decisional law of this state. Judicial notice shall be taken of "decisional, constitutional, 8 and public statutory law of this state" under Evidence Code section 451, subdivision (a). 9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Dated: January 24, 2020
9 Respectfully Submitted,

XAVIER B ECERRA
Attorney General of California

JAMEE JORDAN PATTERSON
Supervising Deputy Attorney General

HAYLEY PETERSON
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Respondent
California Coastal Commission
REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; DECLARATION OF HAYLEY PETERSON (37-2018-00039254-CU-WM-CTL)
15 September 5, 2023 Item 17
2 3

DECLARATION OF HAYLEY PETERSON
I, Hayley Peterson, declare as follows:

1. I am a Deputy Attorney General for the State of California, attorneys of record for 4 Respondent California Coastal Commission. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth 5 herein and, if called upon to testify as a witness, I would and could competently testify thereto. 6 2. On January 14, 2020, I was copied on an email sent by Ralph "Bucky" DeMarco to 7 Deborah Lee at the California Coastal Commission. Attached to the email was a copy of the 8 Court's December 24, 2019 minute order in Del Mar Alliance for the Preservation o.f Beach 9 Access and Village v. City of Del Mar, San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2017-00019864- 10 CU-TT-CTL.

I 1
12 13

3. 4.

5. I was not aware of the lawsuit or the minute order prior to receiving the email.

A true and correct copy of the January 14, 2020 email is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

A true and correct copy of the December 24, 2019 minute order that was attached to 14 the email is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
15 I declare under penalty of pe1jury under the laws of the State of California that the 16 foregoing is true and correct. Signed on this 24th day of January 2020 at San Diego, California. 17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
fiMMf>~
Hayley Peterson
10 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; DECLARATION OF HAYLEY PETERSON (37-20 18-00039254-CU-WM-CTL)
16 September 5, 2023 Item 17

EXHIBIT A
17 September 5, 2023 Item 17
Hayley Peterson
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Dear Deborah,
Ralph "Bucky" DeMarco <[email protected]>
Tuesday, January 14, 2020 10:59 AM
debora [email protected]
Karl Schwing; Jack Ainsworth - Executive Director Coastal Commission; [email protected]; Hayley Peterson; Dayna@Coastal Del Mar Major Amendment LCP-6-DMR-17-0083-3 Short Term Rentals Lawsuits Del MarAllianceWi n.pdf
On December 24, 2019 Judge Katherine Baca I in San Diego Superior Court found that the City of Del Mar's Resolution 2017-29 (and concomitant Implementation Plan Amendment LCP-6- DMR-17-0083-3 (Short-Term Rentals) as submitted) effectively bans STRs from all residentlal areas. Plaintiff, Del Mar Alliance for the Preservation of Beach Access and Village (Alliance), argued - and the City does not dispute - that such a ban could result in the construction of additional hotels and motels to serve visitors, exacerbate traffic and parking issues, and reduce access to coastal resources. The court also found that concentrating STRs in the RC zone could result in environmental impacts related to traffic, overuse and beach erosion. Under these circumstances, Resolution 2017-29 (and concomitant Implementation Plan Amendment LCP-6- DMR-17~0083-3 (Short-Term Rentals) as submitted) constitutes a project under CEQA and should have been reviewed accordingly. Thus, the Alliance's petition for writ of mandate was granted by the court. Please see final minute order attached below. ·
The Coastal Commission denied the City of Del Mar's Implementation Plan Amendment LCP-6- DMR-17-0083-3 (ShortTerm Rentals) as submitted and approved it with suggested modifications on June 7, 2018. The Commission is now in litigation with the City of Del Mar over the Commission's authority to deny the City's proposed LCP Amendment as submitted - Case Number: 37-2018-00039254-CU-WM-CTL 11The City Of Del Mar vs The California Coastal Commission".

Given that Judge Katherine Bacal's findings in the Alliance's lawsuit that the City of Del Mar1s Resolution 2017-29, associated proposed Ordinance No. 934 and LCP Amendment as submitted can not be enforced without a CEQA review, the Commission's lawsuit with the City of Del Mar over its LCP Amendment should be made moot.

Sincerely,
Ralph DeMarco
Treasurer- Del Mar Alliance for Preservation of Beach Access and Village (858) 692-5365
1 18 September 5, 2023 Item 17

EXHIBIT B
19 September 5, 2023 Item 17
DATE: 12/24/2019

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CENTRAL

MINUTE ORDER
TIME: 01 :49:00 PM DEPT: C-69
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Katherine Baca!
CLERK: Calvin Beutler
REPORTER/ERM:

BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT:

CASE NO: 37-2017-00019864-CU-TT-CTL CASE !NIT.DATE: 06/01/2017 CASE TITLE: Del Mar Alliance for the Preservation of Beach Access and Village vs City of Del Mar [E-FILE]
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Toxic Tort/Environmental

APPEARANCES
The Court, having taken the above-entitled matter under submission on 12/20/19 and having fully considered the arguments of all parties, both written and oral, as well as the evidence presented, now rules as follows:

The petition for writ of mandate, filed by Del Mar Alliance for the Preservation of Beach Access and Village ("Alliance"), is granted.

Preliminar; Matters
During the originally scheduled hearing, the Court asked the City for authority supporting its position regarding whether non-action could constitute a project under CEQA. As the City asked to brief this question, the Court continued the hearing and allowed the parties to file additional case citations. ROA # 112. The Court has reviewed the citations provided by the Alliance and the City. None of the cases stand for the proposition that adopting a resolution constitutes inaction.

The City's unopposed request for judicial notice is granted.

Background
The Del Mar Municipal Code ("Muni. Code") provides a process for the City of Del Mar ("City") to render an administrative interpretation of the Zoning Code, including whether a particular use is permitted.

Muni. Code, § 30.01.020 et seq. ln February 2017, the City's Planning Commission held a public hearing to determine whether short-term rentals ("STRs") are an allowed use under the Zoning Code.

AR 113 7-1139. The Planning Com mission concluded it could not make an interpretation because nothing in the Muni. Code specifically references or defines STRs. AR 3081-3082. The Alliance appealed that determination to the City Council. AR 1479-1482. After a public hearing, on May 1, 2017 the City adopted Resolution 2017-29 which determined that STRs are an allowed use in the Residential DATE: 12/24/2019
DEPT: C-69
MINUTE ORDER Page 1
Calendar No.
20 September 5, 2023 Item 17
CASE TITLE: Del Mar Alliance for the Preservation of CASE NO: 37-2017-00019864-CU-TT-CTL Beach Access and Village vs City of Del Mar [E-FILE]
Commercial (RC) zone but not the residential zones. AR 1-7.

Alliance filed this lawsuit to challenge the Resolution, which it calls an "STR ban." The sole cause of action for "Illegal Approval and Adoptlon of STR Ban" alleges the Resolution violates the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQN') and Coastal Act, and deprives property owners of due process.

Discussion
The City argues that its adoption of the Resolution is not subject to environmental review under CEQA because it merely restates existing law. An activity that is not a "project" as defined in CEQA and the Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15000 et seq.) is not subject to CEQA. Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of Upland (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1265, 1271 ("UMMP'). Under CEQA, a project is an activity undertaken by a public agency that "may cause a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment.. .. " Pub. Res. Code, § 21065. "A direct physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment which is caused by and immediately related to the project. Examples of direct physical changes in the environment are the dust, noise, and traffic of heavy equipment that would result from construction of a sewage treatment plant and possible odors from operation of the plant." Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (d)(1 ). "An indirect physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment which is not immediately related to the project, but which is caused indirectly by the project.. .. For example, the construction of a new sewage treatment plant may facilitate population growth in the service area due to the increase Jn sewage treatment capacity and may lead to an increase in air pollution." Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (d)(2).

Enactments and amendments to zoning plans are potential projects. Guidelines, § 15378, subd. (a)(1 ).

However, a "municipal ordinance that merely restates or ratifies existing law does not constitute a project and is therefore not subject to environmental review under CEQA." UMMP, supra, at 1273; see also, San Jose Country Club Apartments v. County of Santa Clara (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 948, 953 (ordinance that prohibited discrimination already prohibited by the Unruh Civil Rights Act and not subject to CEQA review); Black Property Owners Assn. v. City of Berkeley (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 974, 985 (adoption of updated housing element as part of general plan not subject to CEQA review to the extent it readopts existing policies without change).

Naulls (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 418, 433. STRs are neither listed nor expressly prohibited in the Zoning Code. AR 2891, 2989; 3076-3082.

If, as the Crty contends, STRs were already prohibited under the Zoning Code, then the Resolution is not a restatement of the law as the Resolution allows STRs in the RC zone. The City acknowledges that CEQA review is required if the City is considering whether to allow and regulate STRs. Oppo. at p. 10.

Indeed, the City undertook a CEQA review when it previously considered whether to adopt an ordinance allowing STRs. AR 196~197; see also, AR 200 (STRs place demands on the City's infrastructure and municipal services such as beach and park maintenance, fire safety, and law/code enforcement).

DATE: 12/24/2019
DEPT: C-69
MINUTE ORDER Page2
Calendar No.
21 September 5, 2023 Item 17
CASE TITLE: Del Mar Alliance for the Preservation of CASE NO: 37-2017-00019864-C.U-TT-CTL Beach Access and Village vs City of Del Mar [E-FI LE]
There is also substantial evidence that notwithstanding the Zoning Code, the City has long allowed STRs to operate. AR 199, 258 (STRs "predates the City's incorporation), 1541-1542, and 1544-1545.

When the Community Plan was being created, the Land Use Subcommittee did not adopt a proposal to "discourage transient occupancy" 1n residential areas. AR 6719, 6726. In June 2010, a measure to tax STRs (Proposition J) was placed on the ballot. AR 5948. The argument against Proposition J was that STRs were "part of the fabric of Del Mar and have never needed to be regulated." AR 5945.

Proposition J did not pass. OB, p. 3. In 2018, the City considered adopting Ordinance 934 to regulate STRs. City's RJN, Ex. 3. At that time, the City noted there were likely around 300 to 400 STRs. Id. at p. 3; see also AR 258, 4494, 8705.

The Resolution effectively bans STRs from all non-residential areas. Alliance argues - and the City does not dispute - that such a ban could result in the construction of additional hotels and motels to serve visltors, exacerbate traffic and parking issues, and reduce access to coastal resources. It is also undisputed that concentrating STRs in the RC zone could result in environmental impacts related to traffic, overuse and beach erosion. Under these circumstances, the Resolution constitutes a project under CEQA and should have been reviewed accordingly. Thus, the petition for writ of mandate is granted.

In light of this conclusion, it is unnecessary to consider whether the City also violated the Coastal Act or due process rights.

This is the order of the Court. Petitioner is directed to submit a proposed judgment. \CR::=:::;:::,
DATE: 12/24/2019
DEPT: C-69
Judge Katherine Bacal
MINUTE ORDER Page 3
Calendar No.
22 September 5, 2023 Item 17

DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM
Case Name:

No.:

I declare:

City of Del Marv. California Coastal Commission
37-2018-00039254-CU-WM-CTL
I am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the California State Bar at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or older and not a party to this matter; my business address is 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800, P.O.

Box 85266, San Diego, CA 92186-5266. On January 24, 2020, I served the following document(s):

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS; REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE; DECLARATION OF HAYLEY PETERSON (and Exhibits A &B)
~ on the pai1ies tlu·ough their attorneys of record, by ele~tronic mail for service as designated below:

By ONELEGAL: Correspondence that is submitted electronically is transmitted using the ONELEGAL electronic filing system. Participants who are registered with ONELEGAL will be served electronically.

William C. Pate
Clu·istina Cameron
Devaney Pate M01Tis & Cameron LLP
402 West Broadway, Suite 1300
San Diego, CA 92101-3504
Fax: (619) 354-5035
E-mail: wpate(Zi)dpmc law.com
ccameron(iudpmclaw.corn
Attorneys.for Plaintiff
City of Del Mar
I declare under penalty of pe1jury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on January 24, 2020, at San Diego, California.

SD2018 10256 I
72120567.docx
Celia Valdivia
Declarant Signature
23 September 5, 2023 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: Bertha Leone <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2023 4:12 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot - STR's
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable Mayor and members of the Del Mar City Council, I am writing to express my opinion that short term rentals do not belong in Residential Zones other than the beach area, even on a limited basis.

In the past, we have experienced, multiple times, a short term rental in our neighborhood. Parking and noise were the main issues. I cannot remember when they stopped, but we have enjoyed a quiet neighborhood since, and we like it that way.

I do not believe that Del Mar has the capacity to strictly regulate the number of STR's in a residential zone.

Should you expect neighbors to take on Del Mar's responsibility for regulation by reporting violations, please don't. It is unfair to the neighbors to put them in that position.

I don't think the reason short term rentals are made available by owners has to do with their concern for a shortage of opportunities for visitors to stay in Del Mar. The driving force is income. Allowing short term rentals in residential areas attracts investors to purchase properties for lucrative short term rental use. This is a business use of the property and does not belong in a residential zone.

As Del Mar residents age, more older properties will become available for purchase, increasing the potential for investor aquisition. With the passage of Prop 19 in 2020, children and grandchildren who inherit property and cannot live in it are challenged to afford to keep it. Their options are to find a renter at a rental cost that will cover the increased property taxes, turn it into a short term rental to get the best return on their inheritance, or sell, possibly to an investor who can do cosmetic changes and turn it into an STR. More opportunities for increased STR's in Del Mar.

I would appreciate your consideration of my concerns as you discuss and decide on a strategy for short term rentals going forward. Consider the potential future increase in numbers and its impact on the character of the community. What you decide can have unintended consequences.

Regards,
Bertha Leone
Crest Road
24 September 5, 2023 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: Scott Renner <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2023 10:26 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: [email protected]; Dan Quirk; Dwight Worden; Terry Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez Subject: Red Dot 9/5/23 Council Mtg. Agenda XI. #17 STR Policies 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.

This letter is in support of Dwight Worden's 8/28/2023 White Paper outlining proposed STR policies the City of Del Mar should implement. Having actually lived next to a STR, having experienced daily the realities of a nextdoor residential STR in an area of our city with no prior STR experience, and having interfaced with fulltime manager provided by the property investors, who provided no actual impact on an improvement in our overall quality of life during the duration of this STR, precisely because no improvement of quality of life could be made with a short term hotel operating next door, our experience reveals an example of the disruption permanent residents lived through due to the operation of a close proximity STR. In complete contrast, life changed when this home was sold, and a family moved in, becoming part of the community from the get-go.

Unfortunately, I am out of town and unable to make this meeting. I cannot emphasize strongly enough how disruptive living next to a STR was in our family's Del Mar experience. We feel blessed to live in Del Mar and additionally blessed that we have regained our sense of community in the years since this home transitioned back to an owner-occupied residence. We appreciate Mr. Worden's stance protecting the long-term interests of families and individuals who desire a community free from hotels operating under the cover of a STR moniker. We urge the rest of the council to also protect the interests of our permanent residents not vested in a STR or STRs when moving forward in addressing this issue in our community.

Sincerely,
The Renner Family
1329 Via Alta
Del Mar
25 September 5, 2023 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Council meeting 9/5/23 - Agenda Item #17 - short-term rental businesses From: Anne Farrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2023 5:54 PM
To: Dan Quirk <[email protected]>; David Druker <[email protected]>; Dwight Worden <[email protected]>; Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>; Tracy Martinez <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk Mail Box <[email protected]>
Subject: Council meeting 9/5/23 - Agenda Item #17 - short-term rental businesses CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Council Members,
The debate over Short Term Rental Businesses (STRBs) in Del Mar has gone on for many years, with looser rules now being pushed by those business operators who can make a bundle renting out a Del Mar house for a weekend or a week, regardless of any impact on neighborhood character, noise, and other nuisances that arise when you have a short-term “hotel” next door and “hotel guests” coming and going without consideration of the neighbors. You need to call this as it is: intensive commercial activity in neighborhoods zoned exclusively for residential use.

The loudest proponents are those who stand to make lots of money from their STRB properties, including “resident Kimberly Jackson” whose opinions Mr. Price has promoted below with his widely-distributed elist. You can see the dozen Del Mar properties Ms. Jackson currently promotes, one of them with a pricetag of $1,600/night. Vacation Rentals by Kimberly: Del Mar The exact same place is listed on VRBO at $2,950/night: VRBO: "The Del Mar Hilltop Oceanview Resort Mansion" Another vocal proponent is Debbie Church, likewise an STRB operator. Ms. Church and Ms. Jackson have been consistent complainers about Del Mar’s attempts to regulate STRBs, but who now know that they have a council majority much more in their favor. Just today, Mr. Price sent out another email, from someone identified as “Del Mar Resident, Ralph "Bucky" DeMarco” – however, as you know, he and his wife Laura own their own short-term rental properties and have a financial stake in these decisions.

The last time I checked, you on the City Council were elected to represent the interests of all Del Mar citizens, first and foremost. But it does seem that the Council Majority is now paying closer heed to the STRB owners who want to be able to rent properties more freely to short-term “hotel visitors,” despite the Guiding Principles 1-7. When you get to #8, “distribution of STRBs throughout the community,” big problems arise. Every single person in Del Mar should think about what it would mean if your immediate neighbor decided to short-term rent their house – let’s say, to a group of recent college grads wanting a blow-out weekend in Del Mar. Or if your neighbor sold their house to a company with the sole intent of renting it out short-term for high profit. I know first-hand what that’s like – there is a notorious STRB on Via Alta up the hill from our house, and their weekends can be very noisy and disruptive. While perhaps people think that the short term rentals are mostly happening down by the beach, just take a look at all the Del Mar properties currently listed on VRBO – for instance, a small house on Amphitheatre is renting for $1,000/night. 26 September 5, 2023 Item 17
2 In your zeal to collect TOT revenue, you may be opening a Pandora’s box of problems that have been experienced by every community that allows STRBs to operate in every zone without time limitations or real controls, thereby diminishing the character, peace, quiet, and safety of residential neighborhoods that have long made Del Mar such a desirable place to live. Not only do property values of non-STRB-owners go down, we lose valuable rental stock and add other pressures onto the City, including the “enforcement” rules that have been pretty useless with violators up till now. Worst of all, we further diminish the quality of neighborliness and community that has so long been a hallmark of Del Mar.

Thank you for thinking through this critical issue in all its dimensions and implications.

Anne Farrell
Via Alta, Del Mar
From: Hershell Price <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 11:51 AM
To: Knowledge For The Vote <[email protected]> Subject: Del Mar Short-Term Rentals: Recap & CALL to ACTION - Commentary By Del Mar Resident Kimberly Jackson
Dear Residents of Del Mar,
At the September 5th City Council Meeting, there will be a discussion by the Council Members on the development of new Short Term Rental Policies and Regulations (Agenda Item #17).

Please try to attend and let your voices be heard on this important issue. In Advance of the meeting next week, resident Kimberly Jackson has submitted her thoughts as follows:

Hershell Price
Call | Website | Email
27 September 5, 2023 Item 17
3 Recap of the Short-Term Rental Discussion at
The Del Mar City Council Meeting on July 24th
Click to watch the STVR Discussion: Item 10
In summary, the City of Del Mar voted on guiding principles upon moving forward when making new rules and regulations, they include:
28 September 5, 2023 Item 17
4 1. Honor the existing policies in the Del Mar Community Plan

2. Maintain the residential character of neighborhoods in residential zones

3. Honor the tradition of vacation rentals during the summer, holidays, and horse racing season

4. Ensure protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare

5. Ensure the City's natural resources will be preserved and protected

6. Ensure STRs will not overburden public improvements, facilities, and services

7. Minimize adverse impacts to adjacent private properties and the surrounding neighborhood

8. Consider distribution and concentration of STRs throughout the community

9. Craft regulations that are easy to understand and implement

10. Communicate expectations for civil conduct in line with "good neighbor" policies

11. Establish enforcement protocols, and ensure regulation of STRs is, at a minimum, revenue neutral to the City
Next Meeting
The next meeting will take place on Tuesday, September 5th. The discussion will continue and we will need all of your support as the City Council is moving forward with implementing new rules and regulations.

Call to Action!
A. Make an appearance at the next City Council Meeting! Your representation & statements will impact the Council Member's direction.

All short-term vacation rental owners & operators should come give public testimony, as it is the most effective way to show support! B. Please write to all council members with your proposed STVR regulations in Del Mar.
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
29 September 5, 2023 Item 17
5 [email protected]
Contact Us | FAQs | Privacy Policy
Vacation Rentals by Kimberly | Del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice
Sent by [email protected] powered by
Try email marketing for free today!
30 September 5, 2023 Item 17
6 --
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
31 September 5, 2023 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: Karla Leopold <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2023 7:11 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Willie; Julie Maxey
Subject: Red Dot: two Reynolds
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.

September 2, 2023
To: Mayor Martinez, City Council Members Druker, Gaasterland, Quirk, Worden, City Manager Ashley Jones Red Dot Re: short term rentals
Residents in Del Mar are and have been allowed to rent their properties on a monthly basis, 31 days without regulations and registrations.

Historically in Del Mar shorter term rentals have been informally active during either summer months or during the racing season since the implementation of the Community Plan that set up a structure for a successful city. However in the most recent years, a large number of the current short term rentals have failed to register, follow any regulations and do not enhance the Del Mar sense of community. In many ways we have become a community of short term rentals with absent landlords ( or businesses) with little regard to the community of Del Mar. The short term rentals add to the housing shortage for those who work or desire to live in Del Mar full time.

A prime example is the short term rental across the street from our home on 11th Street. When trying to contact the owners about the noise violation and occupancy changing every few days during Covid, we were unable to contact anyone. When attempting to trace the ownership, we found that it is registered to a company in British Columbia.

There is no number listed to ask or report anything that is questionable. We have contacted the sheriff and unfortunately that’s not a great way to use the sheriff department and would like to know who the owners are and have a number to contact. During the active periods of COVID, much to our dismay, new renters were coming in weekly and many from out of the area and state to rent in our community with no regulations.

We own a home in Idyllwild, California, which was inundated with short term rentals. The community was able to construct regulations and registration to help control the out of control situation of short term rentals.

For the R zones a 28-7 program for STRS was suggested. Time to review, reconsider and adopt this plan. It is fair for all.

And again, residents are able to rent properties on a monthly basis. There is no need folr the business of STRS to continue to be a menace and grow into a larger menace in our residential neighborhoods.

Karla and Bill Leopold
11th Street
Sent from my iPhone
32 September 5, 2023 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: Jennifer McDowell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2023 9:21 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Steven McDowell
Subject: DM Vacation Rentals & Coastal Commission
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:

I have communicated with each City Council that has addressed this topic of Vacation Rentals in Del Mar City on many occasions in writing and in person (10 years). Please note I support the continued historical use of vacation rentals in Del Mar. I support reasonable regulation of noise and good neighbor policies as done in Encinitas CA. I am aware of the outcome of the lawsuit where the City of DM was told their position was unacceptable.

Our property was built with no garage or storage and has been used by multi-generational families for Vacations and Celebrations at the beach for several decades. My husband and I live in Del Mar and work directly with our guests. We also use this property for our family when they come into Del Mar. Using this property as a vacation rental gives us the flexibility to host our family when needed.

The people who drafted our City Plan knew that tourism was key to our very small city and recognized the benefit of vacation rentals in providing options for families to be able to stay at the beach and cook in a kitchen; not every family has the resources to stay in hotels.

I have concerns about the concepts of placing time limits on how a property may be utilized, rights go with the land.

Sincerely
Jennifer C. McDowell
1089/11 Coast Blvd.
&
1605 Forest Way
Del Mar, CA 92014
Cell 858 354-9866
1 September 5, 2023 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Counterproductive Lawsuits in Short Term Rentals Regulations Legislation - Del Mar ----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Ralph "Bucky" DeMarco <[email protected]>
To: Mayor Tracy Martinez <[email protected]>; Dave Druker <[email protected]>; Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>; Dan Quirk <[email protected]>; Dwight Worden <[email protected]>; <Leslie Devaney <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 at 10:40:04 AM PDT
Subject: Counterproductive Lawsuits in Short Term Rentals Regulations Legislation - Del Mar I have been asked by a City Councilperson to submit the facts of the court record on Del Mar's STRs lawsuits in the email below as a Red Dot.

Councilmember Worden's 2016 White Paper was used to justify banning STRs, suing the Coastal Commission and other lawsuit actions. The entire deceiving 2016 White Paper was completely debunked resulting in more than $1 million dollars of lost costs to the City. . The Del Mar City Council spent our taxpayer dollars to take the Coastal Commission to court to fight for their right to ban vacation rentals despite 500 petition signatures favoring STRs. Choosing to sue instead of a compromise plan.

In recent days we have been subjected to an additional completely deceiving and debunked 2023 White Paper dated Aug. 28 from Councilmember Worden. This White Paper also ignores basic facts found in the past losing lawsuits. When will the lying to ourselves stop?
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Ralph "Bucky" DeMarco <[email protected]>
To: Mayor Tracy Martinez <[email protected]>; Dave Druker <[email protected]>; Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>; Dan Quirk <[email protected]>; Dwight Worden <[email protected]>; Leslie Devaney <[email protected]>; City Manager Mail Box <[email protected]>; Amanda Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 06:31:21 PM PDT
Subject: Unproductive Lawsuits in Short Term Rentals Regulations Legislation - Del Mar At the July 24 City Council meeting, the City Council agreed to avoid "unproductive" lawsuits in establishing short term rentals ("STRs") regulations. Unproductive lawsuits are the result of faulty facts, flawed legal arguments and unfair, incompetent legal advice that waste City resources.

Generally speaking, when you lose lawsuits and the courts decide against you, you were wrong about your legal contentions. Sadly, Del Mar's history is one of being involved on the losing side of every STR regulation lawsuit and is estimated to have cost the City at least a $1 million dollars and counting so far.

On January 23, 2023 I wrote a red dot to the City Council warning that the City is erroneously enforcing an invalid Interpretation ((I2017-001) with its Citation No. 2647, 128 9th Street and was headed for a lawsuit. Citation No. 2647 contemptuously ignores that on December 24, 2019 the Honorable Katherine Bacal of the San Diego Superior Court declared Del Mar's Interpretation in Resolution 2017-29 and Ordinance 934 invalid and legally unenforceable. Those two lawsuits have been registered in San Diego Superior Court as predicted and were being heard ex parte in Judge 1 September 5, 2023 Item 17
2 Bacal's courtroom this morning. Danielle Nicholas v. City of Del Mar Case No. 37-2023-00010328- CL-JR- CTL. Gina Mattern v. City of Del Mar Case No. 37-2023-00010313-CL-JR-CTL.

The City went forward welcoming the two lawsuits above despite warnings. It is hard to believe the City wants to avoid lawsuits now. The Citizens of Del Mar are sick of our town lying about the long standing existence of daily/weekly STRs, especially in the beach colony and the south bluffs. The lies are designed to unfairly deny the property rights of our neighbors and cheat certain homeowners out of their grandfather rights. The lawsuits will only stop when zealots in power stop lying about the long standing tradition of daily/weekly STRs in Del Mar and recognize the legal grandfather rights of Del Mar residents.

Read the City Council person email below and decide for yourself what you believe about the City Council's desire to avoid unproductive lawsuits.

From: Dwight Worden <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Jul 24, 2023, 11:07 AM
Subject: Thanks for your Red dot on STRs
To: Gina Corsini Mattern <[email protected]>
Gina, Thanks for your Red Dot on STRs and know that it has been received and read by me. A couple of comments:

1. The community Plan doesn't reference STRs. It references "transient" housing in the context of race rentals for the 6 week
racing season and student rentals during the summer.

2. The subcommittee vote that you reference resulted in a 4-4 tie which means "no action" not rejection. That's an important
difference. I'm sure we will probe the Community Plan further as a measure stick for judging whatever STR rules are proposed,
and you and everyone will have a chance to weigh in further.

Dwight
Incorrect wordsmithing comments like these are not only extreme contortions of the facts, they also cause big losses in courts of law. Evidence that the Community Plan contemplated daily/weekly STRs is overwhelming. Stating the Community Plan doesn't reference STRs is not correct.

Saying
STRs were only 6 week racing season deals or summer students for longer periods is a lie and not
only found to be wrong in court, it is a ridiculous statement on its face. - The City Council that adopted the Community Plan in 1974 specifically stipulated that the definition
of "transient occupancy" is "daily and weekly" in the Community Plan working papers and records
for Lou Terrell former mayor and Charles Keeling Chairman. - The Land Use Subcommittee for the Community Plan voted NOT to "discourage STRs" defined as daily/weekly.

No discussion to ban ever. Documentation available.
- The Community Plan land use element itself describes "a comparatively significant percentage
of transient occupancy exists in the North Beach District" (see Community Plan pg. 56) 2 September 5, 2023 Item 17
3 "Transient" is a defined term in the Municipal Code Sec. 30.12.030 as a less than 30 day occupancy.
- There are 5 affidavits from former Community Plan task force and City Council members declaring the Community Plan always permitted daily/weekly STRs. - Old Surf Comber newspaper ads going back decades show dozens of rental ads in Del Mar as "daily/weekly" as submitted in a Red Dot to the Council on February 28, 2017 (racing season rentals
took second place to daily/weekly beach rentals).
- In 1981 Del Mar Planning Director (Healy) and City Attorney (Dwight Worden) issued city memorandums
ruling that daily/weekly STRs are a residential activity and not a commercial activity and declaring STRs
in the residential zones are permitted in the Community Plan and zoning codes. - In 2010 the Planning Commission and City Council voted to approve TOT while unanimously agreeing
that STRs are consistent with and contemplated by the Community Plan. - In 2017 dozens of prominent citizens weighed in on record (Feb. 27, 2017 Red Dot) stating daily/weekly
STRs have always been a part of the fabric of Del Mar.
- In 2019 Judge Bacal ruled there is substantial evidence that STRs have long operated in Del Mar predating the City's incorporation.

City staff are simply reiterating what they've been told to say. When Amanda Lee stated that the Community Plan
is silent on STRs in the July 24 meeting, she was simply parroting Dwight's incorrect opinion. That opinion is
deceitful and wrong. It does not reflect a City Council decision to be fair and avoid unnecessary,
unproductive lawsuits that cause massive losses.

Sincerely,
Ralph DeMarco
Del Mar Citizen
3 September 5, 2023 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: Ron Prater <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2023 11:20 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot letter for Item 17 on the agenda 9/5/2023 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Council Members:

I am strongly opposed to any expansion of Short Term Rental Businesses in the areas of the city zoned residential. This zoning designates residences, not short term rental businesses. We should adhere to the Community Plan and the zoning that flowed from it.

My reasons for opposing expansion of STRBs in the residential zones include the following:
--We want neighbors and community; STRBs provide none.
--People who want to run businesses in Del Mar should buy property in the commercial zones, not abuse neighbors in residential zones.
--There is a wide variety of accommodations available for visitors in Del Mar without invading the residential zones with STRBs.
--The City should collect all data regarding existing STRBs in Del Mar so that a suitable restrictive policy may be put in place.
--The State is placing great legal pressure on expanding housing units in all cities including Del Mar. STRBs reduce the stock of housing, exactly in opposition to the directives from California. -Ron Prater
442 Zuni Drive
Del Mar
1 September 5, 2023 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Short term rentals
-----Original Message-----
From: Rosanne Holliday <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2023 11:13 AM
To: City Hall Mail Box <[email protected]>
Subject: Short term rentals
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,
I have a STR business next to me on Crest Road and I see one of the drawbacks is I never knowing who is there and in case of an emergency I do not have a number to call for fast help or to alert them of some problem or danger.

Years ago at 3 in the morning our chicken coop caught fire and our neighbor after calling the fire department called us and we were able to save some of the chickens. This would not have happened if strangers were in the house.

I would like to know if STR business operators are required to have a Del Mar business license? And if so, do they? I would like to know what are the rules for the business next to me? How many days a year can they rent the house?
Are they grandfathered in or will new rules apply to them.

Neighbors and neighborhoods mean a lot to the quality of life, strangers add nothing.

Rosanne Rennie Holliday
1233 Crest Road
Del Mar
Sent from my iPad
Rosanne Rennie Holliday
1233 Crest Road
Del Mar, CA.92014
Cell. 619 889 7880
DelMar. 858 755 7880
1 September 5, 2023 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: Joy Ehrenfeld <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2023 12:37 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: RED DOT: Short Term Rentals
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 would like to second the opinions expressed by Camilla Rang in her Red Dot letter below. I would like to keep STR’s highly regulated so that we can preserve our residential neighborhoods for the people who live here.

Sincerely,
Joy Shadle Ehrenfeld
220-10th St
Dear Del Mar City Council,
I write in regards to Short Term Rental regulations in Del Mar. I cannot think of a better way to destroy a town than to allow it to transfer into full time and unregulated STR. There will be no one at the City Council meetings, no one at the DRB or City Planning. In short, there won't be any residents that get involved in the city decisions to protect it against having only money making as its only goal.

I do understand that the conventional hotel rental does not fit everyone, so yes, some STR should be allowed, but highly regulated in amount and where.

Perhaps grandfather in those who legally already have rented out as STR and then cap it. Once such a house is sold, the STR permission could go back into the pool and handed out to the next house owner in line.

Personally, I do not want any STR next to me. I want to live in a neighborhood where I know peoples' names, where I can ask them to take care of my cat while I'm out of town - and me in turn take care of their pets/plants etc when they are out of town. I want to live in a neighborhood where I recognize people when I'm out for a walk and stop and chat to catch up. I do not want to live in a neighborhood where I'm the only permanent resident, where different people come and go and are on vacation mood 365 days a year.

Please keep STR highly regulated to save our town.

I support the following:
1 September 5, 2023 Item 17
2 *The City should focus on a program that allows STRs in the Visitor, Commercial, Beach Commercial, and RC zones, in the Specific Plans Areas for L’Auberge and the 941 project, and for the timeshares at Wave Crest.
* The City can consider allowing very limited STR use in residential areas consistent with the historical transient rentals documented in the Community Plan, i.e. the historical rentals in the beach area for:

Summer race season rentals;
2 nd home owners who rent long-term for the off season and visit for the summer
Limited STRs in the RM Zones where most STRs have historically occurred. * The city should:

Continue to prohibit full time STRS in the R zones (except RC) and allow limited STR use in the RM zones;
Allow an updated version of the 28-7 program for the R zones, where the owner or a long-term tenant occupies the property most of the year; Require good neighbor policies for all STRs, enforceable and with teeth; Require a permit for all STR use;
Require TOT payment from all STRs;
Limit the number, density, and location of STRs to avoid over-concentration in any neighborhood;
Require all STRs to meet basic safety standards, to have adequate parking, and to post Neighbor Friendly rules and a 24 hour contact number for neighbors to address problems.

Sincerely,
Camilla Rang
2 September 5, 2023 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: rick ehrenfeld <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2023 12:38 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Short term rentals
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Council Members,
I am writing to show my support for the continuing implementation of the 7/28 compromise.

Thanks,
Rick Ehrenfeld
220 10th Street
1 September 5, 2023 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: Ralph "Bucky" DeMarco <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2023 1:18 PM
To: Mayor Tracy Martinez; Terry TG. Gaasterland; Dan Quirk; David Druker-Private; Dwight Worden; Leslie Devaney; City Clerk Mail Box; City Manager Mail Box Cc: Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk; David Druker; Terry Gaasterland; Dwight Worden; Luke Harold; [email protected]; Laura Place
Subject: Fw: DeMarco Response to Wordens eblast inaccuraces Attachments: DelMarAllianceWin1.docx
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.

Decide for yourselves who's lying; Judge Bacal or Dwight Worden! Mr. Worden claims:

1."My 2016 White paper did NOT recommend banning STRs. It documented the Community Plan and Zoning Code provisions applicable to STRs.

2. Del Mar has never banned STRs.
 I have never supported a ban."
Honorable Judge Katherine Bacal's Statement in her MInute Order Judgment AGAINST the City:

The Resolution effectively bans STRs from all residential areas. Alliance argues - and the City does not dispute - that such a ban could result in the construction of additional hotels and motels to serve visitors, exacerbate traffic and parking issues, and reduce access to coastal resources. It is also undisputed that concentrating STRs in the RC zone could result in environmental impacts related to traffic, overuse -and-beach erosion .

Please see second to last paragraph from Judge Bacal's Minute Order (attached). ----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Dwight Worden <[email protected]>
To: Hershell Price <[email protected]>; Ralph Bucky DeMarco <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:28:44 AM PDT
Subject: Worden Response to DeMarco eblast
TO: Ralph DeMarco and Hershell Price:

I respectfully ask that you distribute the following response from me to Ralph DeMarco’s September 1, 2023 email which you distributed widely in the community, to the same people to whom you distributed Mr. De Marco’s email. Fairness requires no less.

Thanks!
Dwight Worden
Dwight Worden Response To Ralph “Bucky” De Marco’s Inaccurate Statements 1 September 5, 2023 Item 17
2 By email dated September 1, 2023 Ralph “Bucky” DeMarco and Hershell Price widely distributed the following email in the Del Mar community. Because it is grossly inaccurate, and because facts matter, I am compelled to respond. My responses to key inaccuracies are in red.

Below: DeMarco text in black; my responses in red
I have been asked by a City Councilperson to submit the facts of the court record on Del Mar's STRs lawsuits in the email below as a Red Dot.

Response:
 My 2016 White paper did NOT recommend banning STRs. It documented the Community Plan and Zoning Code provisions applicable to STRs.  Del Mar has never banned STRs.
 I have never supported a ban.
 STRs were and always have been allowed (with no objection from me) in the Commercial, Visitor, North Commercial, and RC zones, and at the L’Auberge (12 weekly units) and Wave Crest (31 weekly timeshares).
 I supported the 7/28 program, allowing, not banning, STRs in residential zones.  There is no support for the claim of $1 million in costs. The city’s costs were limited to defending against the lawsuits brought by the DeMarcos and others and to the city’s challenge to the Coastal Commission effort to change the City program from a minimum of 7 day stay and 28 days per year to 3 day stay for 100 days per year.  Signatures of more than 100 residents were submitted to the Coastal Commission in support of the Council’s 7/28 program.
 The council’s 7/28 program was adopted by ordinance after public hearing by 4-1 council vote (Worden, Parks, Haviland, Druker voting “yes” and Sinnott voting “no.”) This was a council action by majority vote.

In recent days we have been subjected to an additional completely deceiving and debunked 2023 White Paper dated Aug. 28 from Councilmember Worden. This White Paper also ignores basic facts found in the past losing lawsuits. When will the lying to ourselves stop?
Response:
 I stand by my 2023 White Paper as factually accurate. 2 September 5, 2023 Item 17
DATE: 12/24/2019 MINUTE ORDER Page 1
DEPT: C-69 Calendar No.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CENTRAL

MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 12/24/2019 TIME: 01:49:00 PM DEPT: C-69
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Katherine Bacal
CLERK: Calvin Beutler REPORTER/ERM:

BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT:

CASE NO: 37-2017-00019864-CU-TT-CTL CASE INIT.DATE: 06/01/2017 CASE TITLE: Del Mar Alliance for the Preservation of Beach Access and Village vs City of Del Mar [E-FILE]
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Toxic Tort/Environmental

The petition for writ of mandate, filed by Del Mar Alliance for the Preservation of Beach Access and Village ("Alliance"), is granted.

Preliminary Matters
During the originally scheduled hearing, the Court asked the City for authority supporting its position regarding whether non-action could constitute a project under CEQA. As the City asked to brief this question, the Court continued the hearing and allowed the parties to file additional case citations. ROA # 112. The Court has reviewed the citations provided by the Alliance and the City. None of the cases stand for the proposition that adopting a resolution constitutes inaction.

The City's unopposed request for judicial notice is granted.

Code, § 30.01.020 et seq. In February 2017, the City's Planning Commission held a public hearing to determine whether short-term rentals ("STRs") are an allowed use under the Zoning Code. AR 1137-1139.

The Planning Commission concluded it could not make an interpretation because nothing in the Muni. 3 September 5, 2023 Item 17
DATE: 12/24/2019 MINUTE ORDER Page 2
DEPT: C-69 Calendar No.

Code specifically references or defines STRs. AR 3081-3082. The Alliance appealed that determination to the City Council. AR 1479-1482. After a public hearing, on May 1, 2017 the City adopted Resolution 2017-29 which determined that STRs are an allowed use in the Residential CASE TITLE: Del Mar Alliance for the Preservation of CASE NO: 37-2017-00019864-CU-TT-CTL Beach Access and Village vs City of Del Mar [E-FILE]
Commercial (RC) zone but not the residential zones. AR 1-7.

Alliance filed this lawsuit to challenge the Resolution, which it calls an "STR ban." The sole cause of action for "Illegal Approval and Adoption of STR Ban" alleges the Resolution violates the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and Coastal Act, and deprives property owners of due process.

Discussion
The City argues that its adoption of the Resolution is not subject to environmental review under CEQA because it merely restates existing law. An activity that is not a "project" as defined in CEQA and the Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15000 et seq.) is not subject to CEQA. Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of Upland (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1265, 1271 ("UMMP"). Under CEQA, a project is an activity undertaken by a public agency that "may cause a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect change in the environment...." Pub. Res. Code, § 21065. "A direct physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment which is caused by and immediately related to the project. Examples of direct physical changes in the environment are the dust, noise, and traffic of heavy equipment that would result from construction of a sewage treatment plant and possible odors from operation of the plant." Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (d)(1). "An indirect physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment which is not immediately related to the project, but which is caused indirectly by the project.... For example, the construction of a new sewage treatment plant may facilitate population growth in the service area due to the increase in sewage treatment capacity and may lead to an increase in air pollution." Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (d)(2).

Enactments and amendments to zoning plans are potential projects. Guidelines, § 15378, subd. (a)(1).

Whether a particular activity constitutes a project in the first instance is a question of law. UMMP, supra, at 1273. The City argues that the Resolution is a mere restatement of the law because STRs were already prohibited under the Zoning Code. The City argues it has a permissive zoning code which does not expressly allow STRs. A permissive zoning code is one in which a particular use of land is not allowed unless it is expressly designated in the zoning code as a permissible use. City of Corona v. Naulls (2008) 4 September 5, 2023 Item 17
DATE: 12/24/2019 MINUTE ORDER Page 3
DEPT: C-69 Calendar No.
166 Cal.App.4th 418, 433. STRs are neither listed nor expressly prohibited in the Zoning Code. AR 2891, 2989; 3076-3082.

If, as the City contends, STRs were already prohibited under the Zoning Code, then the Resolution is not a restatement of the law as the Resolution allows STRs in the RC zone. The City acknowledges that CEQA review is required if the City is considering whether to allow and regulate STRs. Oppo. at p. 10. Indeed, the City undertook a CEQA review when it previously considered whether to adopt an ordinance allowing STRs. AR 196-197; see also, AR 200 (STRs place demands on the City's infrastructure and municipal services such as beach and park maintenance, fire safety, and law/code enforcement).

CASE TITLE: Del Mar Alliance for the Preservation of CASE NO: 37-2017-00019864-CU-TT-CTL Beach Access and Village vs City of Del Mar [E-FILE]
There is also substantial evidence that notwithstanding the Zoning Code, the City has long allowed STRs to operate. AR 199, 258 (STRs "predates the City's incorporation), 1541-1542, and 1544-1545.

When the Community Plan was being created, the Land Use Subcommittee did not adopt a proposal to "discourage transient occupancy" in residential areas. AR 6719, 6726. In June 2010, a measure to tax STRs (Proposition J) was placed on the ballot. AR 5948. The argument against Proposition J was that STRs were "part of the fabric of Del Mar and have never needed to be regulated." AR 5945. Proposition J did not pass. OB, p. 3. In 2018, the City considered adopting Ordinance 934 to regulate STRs. City's RJN, Ex. 3. At that time, the City noted there were likely around 300 to 400 STRs. Id. at p. 3; see also AR 258, 4494, 8705.

In light of this conclusion, it is unnecessary to consider whether the City also violated the Coastal Act or due process rights.

This is the order of the Court. Petitioner is directed to submit a proposed judgment.

Judge Katherine Bacal
5 September 5, 2023 Item 17
Steve Quirk
226 23rd St
September 5, 2023
The below proposed guidelines are a work in progress conducted by a wide array of interested citizens/residents on the topic of Short Term Rental Regulations. The regulations are primarily informed by the general understanding that:
1) The California coastal commission will force allowance of MOST historical/existing STR operators in the city. Restricting operation below this threshold will most likely invite legal action on behalf of STR owners/operators.
2) Del Mar should utilize best practices from neighboring coastal cities.

Resident Proposed STR Regulation Guidelines for Del Mar Guideline Value Comment
1 Quota (Units) Various There are 2 type of STRs that require different regulation:

A) Full Time STR: Greater than 30 days annually
B) Part Time STR: Less than or equal to 30 days annually A Full Time STR (Entire Homes and Homeshare): 30+ days per year Quota 200 units The estimated current count of STRs on major platforms (AirBnB, VRBO, etc) in Del Mar is approximately 150-200. This may not account for all STRs as some owners may not list on these platforms. 200 full time STR is a number that should satisfy coastal commission and represents ~9% of all housing in Del Mar. Comparable % for other cities: Encinitas 3%, San Diego 1% (Mission Beach 30%), Solana Beach ~6%
1) Preference will be given to properties that can demonstrate prior history of STR operation.
2) Homeshares are treated identically to Entire Home STRs due to the practical inability to continuously monitor the presence of an onsite manager/owner.
3) If there are more or less than 200 qualified applications in the initial application period, City Council will determine if the quota number should be adjusted.

Annual
Rental Days
Unlimited Any significant restrictions (i.e. 100 days or less) will most likely be rejected by the Coastal Commission given that data has revealed that 1) STRs have an average booking of 60%+ (~200 days) and 2) monitoring/enforcement of day limitations is impractical. Good regulations and enforcement will minimize disturbances.

Annual Reg
Fee
$250 Modest fee given relatively high ToT of 13% in Del Mar. For reference, Encinitas fee is $425 with 10%ToT and city of San Diego is $500 and 10.5% ToT.
1 September 5, 2023 Item 17
ToT 13% Matches Transient Occupancy Tax (ToT) rate charged to hotels. This along with the annual registration fee will fund the STR enforcement.

B Part time primary residence (Entire Home and Homeshare): Less than 30 days per year Quota 25 This applies to STRs which are both rented out for less than 30 days per year and serve as the primary residence of the STR owner (applicant must provide proof of residency).

Annual
Rental Days
30 A maximum of 30 days annual for short term rentals will be permitted.

Anyone renting their house out for more than 30 days a year, will need to register as a full time STR or Homeshare
Reg Fee $125 A lower fee than Full Time STR license fee due to the part term nature of the license.

ToT 13% Matches Transient Occupancy Tax (ToT) rate charged to hotels. This along with the annual registration fee will fund the STR enforcement. 2 STR
ownership
1 per person Eliminates businesses and corporations from buying homes solely for investment purposes. Grandfathered exceptions with verifiable long term history will be allowed.
3 Minimum
Days Stay
3 Days Will most likely pass coastal commission review given Encinitas’ tentative approval of a 3 day minimum policy (final CCC review expected in Aug/Sep).

A 7 day minimum would most likely not pass review given that history of STRs in Del Mar demonstrates shorter stays.
4 Occupancy
Limitations
2 people per
bedroom + 2
for structure
Max occupants of STR are 2 people per bedroom + 2 for structure . For example a 3 bedroom STR would allow for 8 guests (i.e. 2 guests could sleep on a pull out couch in the living room)
5 Safety Check Yes Fire alarms, CO detectors, egress from bedrooms. Attested to via signed form by owner or manager on an annual basis. City reserves right to inspections.
6 Specific
neighborhood
/block limits
None This rule would be cumbersome to design and implement (differences between neighborhoods, single family homes and multifamily units ) and in the end would do little given that the proposed STR limit (200) will already prevent the possibility of turning certain city blocks into STR zones. 7 “3 Strikes
Rule”
3 If an STR property receives 3 fines over the period of 2 years, the owner will lose the STR license and may reapply for STR license in 2 years subject to availability of STR licenses.
8 24/7 resident
hotline
Yes Simple mechanism for residents and neighbors to quickly resolve STR guest problems and voice official complaints. Commercial outsourced STR call centers already exist that Del Mar can employ.
9 Good
Neighbor
Policy
Yes Handbook for STR guests on quiet hours (9:00 am to 9:00 pm), parties (no large gatherings), parking, trash, barking dogs, loud etc. . . 10 Parking Yes Must have dedicated on site parking
2 September 5, 2023 Item 17
11 Automated
TOT
Collection
Yes Contract with major platforms to automatically collect ToT from guests when bookings are made: AirBnB, VRBO, Booking.com, Expedia, Homestay, Vacasa. Owners/Managers are responsible for collecting and remitting ToT to the city in all other cases on a quarterly basis. Random audits performed.

Failure to remit ToT will result in heavy fines and loss of STR license.

Appendix A: Peer City STR comparison
3 September 5, 2023 Item 17
Appendix B: Del Mar estimated STRs (Granicus Dec 2022); 185 listings. 4 September 5, 2023 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Del Mar STRs
From: Bill Lyon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 7:13 PM
To: Tracy Martinez <[email protected]>; Dan Quirk <[email protected]>; David Druker <[email protected]>; Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>; Dwight Worden <[email protected]>; Leslie Devaney <[email protected]>; City Manager Mail Box <[email protected]> Subject: Del Mar STRs
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.

Some thoughts on Del Mar rentals:

If you were already doing short term rentals in Del Mar, AirBnB was the worst thing that could ever have happened. I don't remember hearing complaints until they came along and investors started buying homes for the sole purpose of renting. If new restrictions are added, I think consideration should be given to those of us who were renting before AirBnB became a thing. My family has been renting since 1965 which I imagine is longer than the majority of residents have even lived in Del Mar. I could argue that when all our neighbors bought their homes, we were already renting our house so it should have been no surprise.

I think any restrictions also need to include "second chances" before the rental is shut down. Of course if a rental is continually causing problems for neighbors they should be shut down. I don't want parties at our house. They destroy things and make cleaning a nightmare. But people lie, so it's impossible to screen out 100% of the bad actors. Is there a way that tenants breaking the rules could be cited immediately if they break the noise ordinance and neighbors complain?
Have you done any investigation on the occupancy rates for non-resident homes? I can't believe the best thing for the city is to have the majority of the row of homes along the beach to be owned by billionaires that leave the house empty for much of the time. That can't be good for downtown. And maybe others need the income to be able to afford the continual expenses of owning a home on the beach.

Whatever course you take, I hope it doesn't prevent us from renting our home which helps pay for its upkeep and allows us to keep it.

Sincerely,
Bill Lyon
1948 Ocean Front
1 September 5, 2023 Item 17
1 Melinda Gould
From: Jeanette Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 6:25 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Agenda Item #18
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Council Member;
I am in support of the City Staff’s recommendations regarding Agenda item #18 in which staff recommends the City Council approve further study and design of the Minimal Alternative (Alternative #3), and authorize a task order with the City’s engineering consultant, MBI, to proceed with Phase 2 Engineering Design.

JMS
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
1 September 5, 2023 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: Rocky Labossiere <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 6:55 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Agenda Item # 18
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Council Staff,
We are in support of City Staff’s recommendaons regarding Agenda item #18.

For design of Minimal Alternave “ Alternave # 3 “ and authorize a task order with the city’s engineering consultant.

Please proceed with phase 2 of engineering design.

Regards Rocky Labossiere
2 September 5, 2023 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: Caitlin Rae <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 10:56 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Dot Note
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.

Sincerely,
Caitlin Laipenieks
1340 Oribia Rd
3 September 5, 2023 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: becky beckywalkerinc.com <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 11:31 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: David Druker; Dwight Worden; Terry Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk Subject: RED DOT LETTER-AGENDA ITEM # 18
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,
I attended the preliminary meeting between our Crest Canyon neighborhood residents and some members of the City Council and staff in which there was a consensus of what kind of road we need to make the neighborhood safe and passable. There was a consensus that the minimum Alternative Design #3 would be the neighborhood choice, at least among those attending the meeting. There was also agreement that we would like for the city to move to the next step to complete the necessary studies required to move forward toward to finding a solution for the neighborhood.

We live on Oribia Rd (a Del Mar public road) but the only way to get to our house and half of the neighborhood is on a deteriorating “private” roadway. The condition of this road in question is barely passable in places and has caused damage to my car resulting in a financial cost to me. The most serious thing about this deteriorated road is that it is the only way in and out of our neighborhood for not only the residents but also for emergency vehicles. This neighborhood is located in Crest Canyon and is considered in a high risk area for wild fires so the access in and out needs to be drivable and safe.

The latest solution for the road design that the City Council staff has devised (Minimal designAlternative # 3) is very agreeable to me and to my husband, Wade. It seemed at the neighborhood meeting that everyone attending was in agreement with the proposed design of the road or at least to use this design to look into the repair or replacement of the road as a first step.

We left the meeting with promise and hope that the City is concerned with the health and safety of its Del Mar citizens.

Thank you for your attention to this issue.

Becky Walker
1440 Oribia Rd.

Del Mar, 92014
(619)884-6095
[email protected]
4 September 5, 2023 Item 18
September 1, 2023
TO: City Council Members
Cc: Ashley Jones, City Manager
From: Rose Ann Sharp
Re: Sept. 5 Agenda Item 18
Del Mar is known for creating a strong and safe community for all residents to enjoy our natural resources and our neighbors. As you know, many residents believe our roads do not reflect the level of safety that we created in our downtown area.

It is in the spirit of safety and a sense of community that I support the city of Del Mar’s proposed engagement of the necessary technical professionals to study this complex situation. I believe this study will help the City Council and the Staff to reach the best outcome for all residents.

I speak from experience about road safety. Several years ago, I was hosting a DMCC Salon and our speaker, who is a Del Mar resident, was navigating a curve on Crest and her front right wheel hit a rut in the road and got stuck. We had to arrange for her car to be towed out. As the roads in this study continue to carry more traffic, the risks for injuries increase.

Please vote yes on this expenditure.

Respectfully submitted,
Rose Ann Sharp
834 Crest Road
Del Mar, Ca. 92014
1 September 5, 2023 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: Ann Williamson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2023 11:46 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: City Council September 5 Agenda Item 18 Red Dot CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk:

I strongly support Item 18 for the further development of the engineering design of the San Dieguito Drive project. The Phase 1 design is a great step forward for our community. Although I do not live on this street, I drive on it and depend on it to be passable for emergency vehicles.

Thank you so much.
---Ann Williamson
1352 Oribia Rd
1 September 5, 2023 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2023 4:21 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Mayor Tracy Martinez; Terry TG. Gaasterland; Dan Quirk; David Druker; Dwight WordenPrivate; Ashley Jones Subject: Red Dot Letter - City Council Meeting - Sep 5, 2023 - Item #18 Attachments: San Dieguito Drive pavement Jul 2023.jpg
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 Leer – City Council Meeng – Sep 5, 2023 – Item #18 San Dieguito Drive Phase 1 Preliminary Engineering Assessment Dear City Council Members and City Staff:

My name is Amy Cheshire and I own the home at 1561 San Dieguito Drive in Del Mar. I’ve been acvely involved with our neighborhood’s efforts to repair San Dieguito Drive for the last six years. The street surface has become extremely dangerous and, as a maer of public safety, we need to move forward with compleng a street design that the City will accept into the public street system.

I strongly support a repair of our street that looks like Alternave #3 from the Phase 1 Engineering Assessment. I am asking the City Council to approve the Task Order with MBI to proceed with Phase 2 of the street design at this me.

It is very important that Phase 2 of the street design begin as soon as possible and compleon of Phase 2 should be expedited in every way possible. The ulity undergrounding construcon design for San Dieguito Drive is almost complete and the street design must coordinate with the ulity undergrounding design. Any delay of ulity undergrounding in Crest Canyon is unacceptable because it increases the risk that a wildfire sparked by above ground ulity poles could cause catastrophic damage to our city. This is our best opportunity to coordinate these two projects so that the ulity undergrounding project can move forward without delay.

This photo (aached) from July 2023 gives you some idea of how dangerous San Dieguito Drive’s surface has become. In August, the water runoff from Tropical Storm Hilary deepened the potholes in front of my house even further.

Sincerely,
Amy Cheshire
2 September 5, 2023 Item 18
3 September 5, 2023 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: wade walker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2023 12:01 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Ashley Jones
Subject: San Dieguito Drive repair
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.

This letter concerns Agenda Item #18, San Dieguito Drive.

First thank everyone, City Council members and staff, for the attention and effort you have given to this longstanding problem. The difficulties with maintaining this public corridor result from decisions and actions taken long ago by other administrations, but the result is that some 30 Del Mar property owners are dependent on a private road for which there is no mechanism to fund maintenance. Good will efforts by the willing are no longer enough to keep the road serviceable. It has not been repaved in the 35 years I have lived here. Meanwhile traffic has increased and its importance as an evacuation route of a fire threatened canyon has grown.

I live on Oribia, a public road at the end of private San Dieguito Drive. Neither I nor the 15 other owners beyond the end of private SD Dr. had any notice in deed records that the City was not responsible for the upkeep of the only link we have to the rest of the public road system.

For both my wife and myself as well as every neighbor I have discussed it with, the minimal alternative (# 3) is an appropriate design, in keeping with the country lane feeling of the neighborhood.

Thank you,
wade walker
[email protected]
4 September 5, 2023 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: Jim Sedgwick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2023 1:13 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Letter – City Council Meeting – Sep 5, 2023 – Item #18 San Dieguito Drive Phase 1 Preliminary Engineering Assessment
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 City Staff,
My name is Jim Sedgwick. My father and I own the home at 1515 San Dieguito Drive in Del Mar. We moved in in 1969, I spent my childhood here, and have recently moved back in to help care for my father's health. My father is a 50-year resident.

I strongly support a repair of our street that looks like Alternative #3 from the Phase 1 Engineering Assessment. I am asking the City Council to approve the Task Order with MBI to proceed with Phase 2 of the street design at this time.

HOWEVER
I strongly urge the Council to remove the four parking spaces from the plan.

It is unfair and inconvenient to group all the parking in front of one property. There are several dirt and gravel areas where cars can park, and the spots in front of our house should be treated the same as the others, and not mentioned on the plans.

These "spots" are based solely on the location of the perimeter fences, and aligning our fence with the neighbors would eliminate these spots.

Warm regards,
Jim Sedgwick
5 September 5, 2023 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: Beth Westburg <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2023 10:28 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Agenda Item #18
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.

Beth and Reid Westburg
1 September 5, 2023 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: $179,000 vs $1,300,000 To Repave San Dieguito Drive? From: K Lare <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2023 9:57 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box <[email protected]>
Cc: Eddie Lare <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: $179,000 vs $1,300,000 To Repave San Dieguito Drive? 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 submit as a red dot for item 18.

City Council Members. If there are any concerns over the costs of projects especially of this magnitude I feel that it is the council's job to instruct the City Manager to seek additional bids and to ask for clarification on pricing. Paving is a large project but contractors who regularly deal with Cities may be padding bills believing that the City will just agree with them versus looking closely at them. What is the harm in putting it off for another few weeks to get additional bids from new contractors hungry for the City's business?
On the line item on the undergrounding - I think we all are aware that contractors will sometimes throw in small items at large costs to allow them to have a higher profit margin on a bid. A price of $3k is a lot for a fence around a Torrey unless it was around a huge stand of them! This seems to be worth questioning the contractor for a cost reduction. If they know you are paying attention they will be less likely to do it in the future.

Karen
1 September 5, 2023 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: Frank Stonebanks <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2023 3:50 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk; Tracy Martinez; David Druker; Dwight Worden Subject: “Agenda item 18 – costs for San Dieguito Drive appear very high. We need to have a review of our approach to public works projects.”
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk
I am subming an official comment for tonight’s meeng for this topic:
“Agenda item 18 – costs for San Dieguito Drive appear very high. We need to have a review of our approach to public works projects.”
A $179,093 cost estimate vs. the City's $1,300,000 cost estimate This makes the proverbial $400 toilet seat from the government look tame.

How can the City claim this road costs 10x what it really costs to repair? Pls explain on the record, NOT in closed session, like you did before. Something to hide? Concerned cizen
Frank Stonebanks
1 September 5, 2023 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: TIMOTHY MILLS <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2023 3:51 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Council meeting September 5, 2023
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.

Regarding Agenda Item 18…….

Despite requests of the Public Works Department to repair my stretch of Ocean View Avenue between Nob and Pine Needles, nothing has been done……for years!
I, and my neighbors, would certainly appreciate your spurring on the Public Works Department to address this wretched stretch of road……ASAP.

We should not have to wait for all the other road repair projects to be performed at the same time.

Thank you,
Timothy Mills
308 Ocean View Avenue
Sent from my iPhone
1 September 5, 2023 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: Shannahoff, David <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2023 4:14 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Tracy Martinez; Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk; David Druker; Dwight Worden Subject: Agenda item 18 – costs for San Dieguito Drive appear very high. We need to have a public review.

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

Dear Council and Staff,
Simply put, there needs to be a public review on the San Dieguito Drive project.

Thank you,
David Shannahoff-Khalsa
Van Dyke Ave
1 September 5, 2023 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2023 4:28 PM
To: Terry Gaasterland; David Druker; [email protected]; Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk; City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: “Agenda item 18 – costs for San Dieguito Drive appear very high. We need to have a review of our approach to public works projects.”
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.

HelloI lived on a private cul de sac in Encinitas many years ago. The owners in that cul de sac were responsible for repaving the road. We received 3 bids to repave the road, and they were quite a bit apart. We did go with the company that had been in the business for many years and came in at an affordable price. I feel the city is not upholding their responsibility of making sure the taxpayer dollars are not going to waste. Hearing what the current contractor is charging for their work is INSANE. It is just like our federal government carelessly spending money without checks and balances. We are a small city. There should be no reason why several bids could not be obtained with proper supervision and guidelines.

Please do a better job and see to it that several contractors are engaged in the process of providing bids for any work that is being done to our city with our taxpayer dollars.

Sincerely,
Dianne "Di" Reppucci Bierman
REALTOR® | DRE 01091051
www.diannereppucciandassoc.com
Covering North County San Diego and Orange County
*We have an incredible network of highly qualified agents nationwide! If you or someone you know is moving out of state, I will be happy to connect you!
THINKING OF SELLING? You can test the market with a "private exclusive" listing (not on the MLS but still visible to tens of thousands of high-end COMPASS agents). 12860 El Camino Real, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92130
m: (760) 580-9811
1 September 5, 2023 Item 18
1 Melinda Gould
From: Maidy Morhous <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2023 12:55 PM
To: Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk; Tracy Martinez; David Druker; City Clerk Mail Box; Dwight Worden
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 18
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
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.

Agenda item 18 – costs for San Dieguito Drive appear very high. We need to have a review of our approach to public works projects.

Maidy Morhous Sculptor
www.maidymorhous.com
[email protected]
1 September 5, 2023 Item 18

Del Mar City CouncilSeptember 5, 2023

Del Mar City Council
September 5, 2023