Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda
Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
May 20, 2024 City Council Meeting
INFORMATION RECEIVED
AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA
WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)
1 Melinda Gould
From: Kobi Schneider <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 7:24 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: SB-1137 Support
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.
Good morning Del Mar council members,
I am Kobi Schneider, and I'm part of a local youth campaign called Youth v. Oil. I urge you to support the upcoming resolution in favor of keeping SB-1137, a state law that prohibits the construction/modification of oil wells within 3,200 feet of homes, schools, daycare centers, parks, healthcare facilities, and businesses. Unfortunately, Big Oil turned the law into a referendum, leaving it up to city councils and individual voters to make it happen. SB-1137 is essential for the future and health of our children, town, and environment; if you want to be on the right side of history, and fight against the deadly, illiberal policies of Big Oil, it is essential that you vote to endorse this bill at the City Council meeting on May 20th.
Thanks,
Kobi Schneider
1 May 20, 2024 Item 08
1 Evy Escalante
From: Taarika Sethee <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 7:32 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Defend Health and Safety Setback Regulations and Endorse the Campaign for a Safe and Healthy California
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello, my name is Taarika and I am a student in the encinitas neighborhood. I am writing in support of the resolution endorsing SB-1137. In 2022 California legislators signed a bill, SB 1137, to implement 3200 ft safety setback zones between oil extraction sites and homes, schools, hospitals, and other community sites. Big Oil chose to spend millions to try to repeal the bill, instead of just implementing it and supporting a sustainable future. That’s why a referendum will appear on the Nov 2024 ballot, asking every California voter whether they want to keep the bill or repeal it. We need the City of Del Mar to help keep this lifesaving bill! This bill not only determines the future, but our future. Thank you for reading and please consider prioritizing the Youth v. Oil resolution which pledges the City of Del Mar’s support to protect fellow Californians’ right to clean air and healthy neighborhoods.
May 20, 2024 Item 8
1 Evy Escalante
From: Udo Wahn <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 4:30 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot for May, 20, 2024 City Council Meeting 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.
May 16, 2024
Honorable Del Mar City Council;
I read Senator Blakespear’s letter to the City Council dated May 14, 2024 regarding SB 1098. I think it is very important to have the California Coastal Commission as part of the “ Working Group.” I do not believe that they were included in earlier versions of the Bill. It seems that the CA Coastal Commission is now included in the language of the SB as it relates to the “Working Group”. I support its inclusion as their input is extremely important in protecting our coast.
I also support the retention of SB-1137 as it is good for the environment and promotes greater, much needed environmental justice.
Udo Wahn, M.D.
Stratford Court
Del Mar, CA
May 20, 2024 Item 8
&10
1 Evy Escalante
From: Emma Weibel <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2024 4:42 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Support for Item 8: Resolution In Favor of Keeping SB-1137 Attachments: Youth v. Oil Sign on Letter SB 1137 Resolution Del Mar.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
My name is Emma Weibel, I am 16 years old, and the lead of SanDiego350's Youth v. Oil campaign.
I am writing to the council in enthusiastic support of Council Member Worden's resolution to pledge the city's endorsement for keeping SB-1137, lifesaving legislation that was put on the November ballot as a referendum by a massive misinformation campaign financed by Big Oil.
The law, which was passed and signed by Governor Newsom, would have mandated 3200 ft setback zones between oil drilling and communities. Creating a minimum degree of safety from where people live, work, learn, and play and incredibly dangerous pollutants.
As Californians, we are all affected by the subversion of Big Oil, we are all affected by these violations of the right to a healthy planet, and we are all affected by the splintering of our democratic system under this blatant show of corruption.
We ask the council to stand with vulnerable communities and Californians as a whole in supporting this resolution.
Please see the attached sign-on letter that illustrates the widespread support from local organizations and other cities in the county for the law.
We appreciate your consideration and support,
--
Emma Weibel
(she/her)
[email protected]
May 20, 2024 Item 8
May 17th, 2024
Dear Honorable Del Mar Council Members,
In order for the City of Del Mar to achieve its imperative climate, health, and resiliency goals, it is crucial that there is a bold show of support from the city making sure San Diegans know the city supports clean air and healthy neighborhoods.
That’s why community organizations are joining with Youth v. Oil, a local youth-led campaign of SanDiego350, asking the City Council to pass a resolution, pledging the city’s support for the Campaign for a Safe & Healthy California and keeping the lifesaving oil setbacks bill, SB 1137, in place when Californians vote on the statewide referendum on the Nov 2024 ballot. We’ve passed our resolution at the San Diego, Encinitas, and La Mesa City Councils.
SB 1137 requires vital 3,200 ft setback zones between oil extraction sites and homes, schools, hospitals, and other sensitive sites. The effects of living in proximity to oil extraction sites are dangerous, causing higher rates of childhood leukemia, chronic headaches, birth defects, asthma, and more. Neighborhood oil drilling is an environmental and social justice issue, disproportionately impacting BIPOC and low-income communities.
Though SB 1137 democratically passed through the Senate and Assembly and was signed into law by Gov. Newsom in September 2022, Big Oil gathered enough signatures to hold a May 20, 2024 Item 8
referendum to repeal the bill, putting its fate in the hands of voters in the November 2024 election. In order to counter this obstruction of health and safety, we urge Californians to vote to “keep the law.” As Californians, we believe everyone deserves clean air and healthy neighborhoods, and as fellow Californians, the City Council should move to support this lifesaving bill and pass the resolution to support keeping SB 1137 in the November referendum.
Sincerely,
Emma Weibel,
Youth v. Oil Lead
Youth4Climate
Masada Disenhouse,
Executive Director
SanDiego350
Vi Thuy Nguyen MD,
Founder and Chair
San Diego Pediatricians for
Clean Air
Mayor Tony Kranz
City of Encinitas
Adam Aron,
Co-founder
Green New Deal at
UCSD
Marilyn Bruno,
CEO
Aequor Inc.
Pamela Heatherington,
VBoard of Directors
Environmental Center of
San Diego
Tama Becker-Varano,
Lead Organizer
Change Begins with
ME
Adam Cooper,
Political Action
Coordinator
Sunrise Movement
San Diego
Karina Gonzalez,
Deputy Director
Hammond Climate
Solutions Foundation
Carl Yaeckel,
Group Leader
San Diego Central Chapter,
Citizens Climate Lobby
Coach Jackson,
Founder
Coastal Defenders
Liliana Soriano,
Policy Advocate
Youth Will
Cori Lopez,
Coordinator
CA Youth v. Big Oil
Sydney Chan,
Youth4Climate Intern
Y4C Eco Club Coalition
Phil Glosserman,
Group Facilitator,
Third Act, SoCal
Joe Houde,
President
North County
Climate Change
Alliance
Suzanne Hume,
Educational Director
& Founder
CleanEarth4Kids.org
Alicia Nichols-Gonzalez,
State Manager
Mothers out Front
Ali Dressel,
Climate Justice Policy
Coordinator
Climate Action
Campaign
Kara Ballester,
President
BQuest Foundation
Jim Miller
Vice President
American Federation
of Teachers Guild
1931
Colleen FitzSimons
Executive Director
San Diego Green Building
Council
Zachary Zeilman,
Climate Change
Committee Lead
Surfrider Foundation
San Diego County
José Franco García
Executive Director
Environmental
Health Coalition
May 20, 2024 Item 8
1 Evy Escalante
From: Bubblia T <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2024 5:45 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Defend Health and Safety Setback Regulations with the Campaign for a Safe and Healthy California
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
My name is Daryn Tarasewicz and I am a part of District 5. I am a student at Pacific Trails Middle School and here to express my support of SB 1137. Melting glaciers, landslides, floods, forest fires, famine, rising temperatures. We’ve heard it all. Yet the world sits back, watching Big Oil consume our planet by the second. I am only thirteen years old. I will be here when there is more plastic in the ocean than fish, when water levels will be over two feet above average, when over a quarter of wildlife is extinct, and when air pollution will be the main cause of environmentally related deaths.
These are precisely the effects of Big Oil’s ongoing destruction to our planet. For the past two years, they have spent 20 million dollars fighting against clean energy bills, particularly SB 1137. What right do these companies have to alter the course of our futures? Why should we be oppressed? Today, I call upon you all to reaffirm your support for this bill. SB 1137 is the light we need to illuminate our futures. This is the key to open the door to sustainability in California. We have done our part to save this planet. The choice is now up to you. Thank you.
May 20, 2024 Item 8
1 Evy Escalante
From: McGarrah Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 9:16 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Endorse SB1137
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.
Agenda item: 8
Hello, my name is McGarrah Wilson and I'm the Youth Program Coordinator for SanDiego350. Protecting the health and safety of Californians is the bare minimum and the City of Del Mar has a responsibility to stand up to Big Oil and ensure safe and healthy neighborhoods. Californians should not have to face the risk of higher rates of childhood leukemia, birth defects, asthma, and more because of Big Oil’s greed.
Neighborhood oil drilling here in CA also disproportionately affects low-income and BIPOC communities further endangering frontline communities. It is crucial we don't lose our essential progress to Big Oil's undemocratically produced referendum and that is why it is critical that the council passes Youth v. Oil's resolution pledging their support for keeping SB 1137. I appreciate this council and thank you all for your time.
McGarrah Wilson (she/her)
Youth Program Coordinator
Youth4Climate, SanDiego350
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
May 20, 2024 Item 8
City of Del Mar
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Clem Brown, Assistant City Manager
DATE: May 17, 2024
SUBJECT: Red Dot Item 10: Consideration of Senate Bill 1098 (Blakespear) Following distribution of the City Council agenda packet on May 15, 2024, Senate Bill 1098 (Blakespear) was further amended to address public concerns over the bill’s exclusion of the California Coastal Commission in the (to be formed) Working Group and its emphasis on the review and approval by the transit agencies of the Working Group’s recommendations. As currently amended, SB 1098 includes the California Coastal Commission as a formal member of the Working Group and makes it clear that the transit agencies will have to the opportunity to review and consider the recommendations of the Working Group (Attachment A).
May 20, 2024 Item 10
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 16, 2024
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 20, 2024
SENATE BILL No. 1098
Introduced by Senator Blakespear
(Coauthors: Senators Allen, Laird, Limón, Newman, and Umberg) (Coauthors: Assembly Members Boerner, Davies, Dixon, and Hart) February 13, 2024
An act to add Sections 14072.8 and 14072.10 to, and to add and repeal Section 14072.6 of, the Government Code, relating to transportation.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 1098, as amended, Blakespear. Passenger and freight rail:
LOSSAN Rail Corridor.
Existing law establishes the Department of Transportation in the Transportation Agency under the control of an executive officer known as the Director of Transportation. Existing law authorizes the Department of Transportation, subject to approval of the Secretary of Transportation, to enter into an interagency transfer agreement under which a joint powers board assumes responsibility for administering the state-funded intercity rail service in certain rail corridors, including the LOSSAN Rail Corridor. Existing law defines the LOSSAN Rail Corridor as the intercity passenger rail corridor between San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Luis Obispo. Pursuant to this authority, the department entered into an interagency transfer agreement with the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency to administer intercity passenger rail service in the LOSSAN Rail Corridor.
This bill would require the Secretary of Transportation to provide guidance and recommendations to, and coordination between,
97 Attachment A May 20, 2024 Item 10
stakeholders as necessary to ensure the performance of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor, as specified.
This bill would also require the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Director of Transportation, the California Transportation Commission, the Secretary for Environmental Protection, Protection and the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, to submit a report to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2026, regarding the LOSSAN Rail Corridor that includes specified information. The bill would also require the Secretary of Transportation, in coordination with stakeholders responsible for operating rail services along the LOSSAN Rail Corridor, to submit a report to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2027, and biennially thereafter, on the performance of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor, as provided.
This bill would require an unspecified entity the Secretary of Transportation to convene a working group composed of representatives of certain types of entities, including, among others, metropolitan planning organizations from specified counties. The bill would require the working group to submit a report to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2026, that provides recommendations to the secretary for inclusion in the above-described report due on or before January 1, 2026, on various topics relating to rail service in the LOSSAN Rail Corridor. Before the report is recommendations are submitted to the Legislature, secretary, the bill would require the report recommendations to be reviewed and approved by submitted to the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency, the Southern California Regional Rail Authority, and the North County Transit District. District for review and consideration. By adding to the duties of local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the LOSSAN Rail Corridor.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
97 SB 1098 — 2 —
Attachment A May 20, 2024 Item 10
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. The act shall be known, and may be cited, as the line 2 Southern California Rail Revitalization Act.
line 3 SEC. 2. Section 14072.6 is added to the Government Code, to line 4 read:
line 5 14072.6. (a) (1) The secretary, in consultation with the line 6 director, the commission, the Secretary for Environmental line 7 Protection, Protection and the Secretary of the Natural Resources line 8 Agency, shall submit a report to the Legislature on or before line 9 January 1, 2026, regarding the LOSSAN Rail Corridor that includes line 10 all of the following information:
line 11 (A) A baseline summary of transportation and environmental line 12 conditions in existence as of January 1, 2025, along the rail line 13 corridor.
line 14 (A)
line 15 (B) Prioritized capital improvement projects in the corridor line 16 necessary to improve current services and accommodate future line 17 passenger and freight service growth consistent with the State Rail line 18 Plan prepared pursuant to Section 14036.
line 19 (B)
line 20 (C) Prioritized resiliency improvement projects in the corridor line 21 necessary to ensure the safe and continued movement of trains. line 22 resiliency of natural resources and transportation infrastructure. line 23 (C)
line 24 (D) A description of administrative actions taken by the line 25 Transportation Agency using authority in existence before January line 26 1, 2025, to improve operations and performance of the corridor. line 27 (D)
line 28 (E) Recommendations for the corridor to connect with other line 29 passenger rail services.
line 30 (E)
line 31 (F) Strategies to support and improve existing rail service and line 32 resiliency planning in the corridor. increase ridership, including line 33 a description of necessary operations funding for increased service line 34 frequencies.
line 35 (G) Recommendations to achieve zero-emission state-supported line 36 equipment, including an analysis of recommended technologies line 37 and necessary infrastructure.
97 — 3 — SB 1098
Attachment A May 20, 2024 Item 10
line 1 (H) Strategies and recommendations to support coastal hazard line 2 resiliency planning in the corridor.
line 3 (I) Recommendations and information regarding any actions line 4 taken in response to those recommendations received from the line 5 working group pursuant to subdivision (c).
line 6 (2) In preparing the report pursuant to this subdivision, the line 7 secretary shall consult existing plans and studies plans, studies, line 8 and guidance for the LOSSAN Rail Corridor, including, but not line 9 limited to, the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Optimization Study and line 10 Study, the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Business Plan adopted line 11 by the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency. Agency, and the guidance line 12 document “Critical Infrastructure at Risk: Sea Level Rise Planning line 13 Guidance for California’s Coastal Zone” adopted by the California line 14 Coastal Commission.
line 15 (3) When undertaking the duties pursuant to this subdivision, line 16 the secretaries identified in paragraph (1) may consult with any line 17 other state agency.
line 18 (4) For projects identified pursuant to paragraph (1), the line 19 secretary shall include in the report all available funding sources, line 20 projected completion schedules for priority projects, current line 21 funding shortfalls, and recommended strategies and plans to line 22 address any funding shortfall.
line 23 (b) The _____ secretary shall convene a working group that line 24 includes, but is not limited to, representatives of all of the following line 25 entities:
line 26 (1) LOSSAN Rail Corridor track owners.
line 27 (2) LOSSAN Rail Corridor passenger and freight rail operators. line 28 operators, including managing agencies, joint powers authorities, line 29 and transit districts responsible for rail services. line 30 (3) The county transportation commissions for the Counties of line 31 Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura line 32 established pursuant to Division 12 (commencing with Section line 33 130000) of the Public Utilities Code.
line 34 (4) The metropolitan planning organizations for the Counties line 35 of Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa line 36 Barbara, and Ventura.
line 37 (5) Business, community, transportation, environmental, labor, line 38 and civic organizations.
line 39 (6) The California Coastal Commission.
97 SB 1098 — 4 —
Attachment A May 20, 2024 Item 10
line 1 (c) (1) The working group convened pursuant to subdivision line 2 (b) shall submit a report to the Legislature on or before January 1, line 3 2026, that provides recommendations to the secretary for inclusion line 4 in the report required pursuant to subdivision (a) on all of the line 5 following as necessary to ensure the long-term viability of line 6 comprehensive and coordinated passenger and freight rail services line 7 in in, or that connect to, the LOSSAN Rail Corridor: Corridor as line 8 of January 1, 2025:
line 9 (A) Dedicated and formula funding distributions available for line 10 passenger rail operations, including intercity and regional rail line 11 services along the corridor.
line 12 (B) Strategies to increase rail service coordination and reduce line 13 disruptions or delays, including, but not limited to, those caused line 14 by climate resiliency, resiliency vulnerabilities, track closures, line 15 state of good repair, equipment, and staffing. The recommendations line 16 made pursuant to this subparagraph should result in improved line 17 maintenance and conditions of assets, reduced track closures, and line 18 greater on-time performance.
line 19 (C) Alternative management and operations models or structures line 20 that improve intercity and regional rail services. line 21 (D) Changes to state statutes, rules, or funding relating to line 22 intercity and regional rail services. necessary to improve the line 23 quality, performance, usage, management, or frequency of line 24 passenger rail services with a focus on streamlining, clarifying, line 25 and improving existing processes or procedures. line 26 (E) Opportunities for rail to accelerate and support equity, safety, line 27 sustainability, zero-emissions, equipment, and economic line 28 development goals.
line 29 (F) Opportunities for metropolitan planning organizations to line 30 analyze, describe, and report progress in operating, maintaining, line 31 and improving the corridor consistent with state and local planning line 32 documents in their sustainable communities strategies or, if line 33 applicable, alternative planning strategies, adopted pursuant to line 34 Section 65080.
line 35 (G) Opportunities for metropolitan planning organizations to line 36 adopt multiregional goals relating to passenger and freight rail line 37 service, capital improvement projects related to those services, line 38 and resiliency of those services along the corridor to include in line 39 their respective sustainable communities strategies or, if applicable, line 40 alternative planning strategies, adopted pursuant to Section 65080. 97 — 5 — SB 1098
Attachment A May 20, 2024 Item 10
line 1 (H) Improving connections to existing and planned public transit line 2 services.
line 3 (I) Strategies that increase ridership and use of rail services. line 4 (J) Strategies to coordinate fleet equipment planning and line 5 management.
line 6 (2) The working group shall consider the known and expected line 7 impacts of recommendations on the coastal environment and local line 8 communities, and consider opportunities to support the coastal line 9 zone and local communities when making recommendations. line 10 (2)
line 11 (3) The report recommendations required pursuant to this line 12 subdivision shall include be developed with meaningful public line 13 engagement led by the working group convened pursuant to line 14 subdivision (b).
line 15 (3)
line 16 (4) Before submitting the report recommendations required line 17 pursuant to this subdivision to the Legislature, secretary, the line 18 working group shall submit the report recommendations to the line 19 governing boards of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency, the line 20 Southern California Regional Rail Authority, and the North County line 21 Transit District for review and approval. consideration. A line 22 governing board described in this paragraph shall notify the line 23 secretary of any action taken in response to these recommendations line 24 for inclusion in the report pursuant to subdivision (a). line 25 (d) (1) The reports report to be submitted pursuant to this line 26 section subdivision (a) shall be submitted in compliance with line 27 Section 9795.
line 28 (2) Pursuant to Section 10231.5, this section is repealed on line 29 January 1, 2030.
line 30 SEC. 3. Section 14072.8 is added to the Government Code, to line 31 read:
line 32 14072.8. (a) Notwithstanding Section 10231.5, the secretary, line 33 in coordination with stakeholders responsible for operating rail line 34 services along the LOSSAN Rail Corridor, shall submit a report line 35 to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2027, and every two line 36 years thereafter, on the performance of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor line 37 that includes all of the following information:
line 38 (1) Performance, ridership, usage, and quality of rail services. line 39 (2) Updates to capital improvement planning.
97 SB 1098 — 6 —
Attachment A May 20, 2024 Item 10
line 1 (3) Progress in delivering fleet and infrastructure improvement line 2 projects.
line 3 (4) Improvements to service and fare coordination. line 4 (5) Opportunities to increase the quality and frequency of line 5 services.
line 6 (6) Updates on corridor resiliency, prepared in coordination line 7 with the California Coastal Commission, including updates on line 8 any projects identified by the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency line 9 pursuant to Section 14072.4 to increase climate resiliency on the line 10 corridor. These updates shall include the status of current and line 11 planned development projects in the coastal zone and an analysis line 12 of environmental conditions.
line 13 (b) A report to be submitted pursuant to subdivision (a) shall line 14 be submitted in compliance with Section 9795.
line 15 SEC. 4. Section 14072.10 is added to the Government Code, line 16 to read:
line 17 14072.10. (a) The secretary shall provide guidance and line 18 recommendations to, and coordination between, stakeholders as line 19 necessary to ensure the performance of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor. line 20 (b) The responsibilities set forth in subdivision (a) shall include line 21 planning, as needed, for any of the following:
line 22 (1) Service frequencies.
line 23 (2) Equipment and fleet management.
line 24 (3) Infrastructure improvement and state-of-good repair projects. line 25 (4) Resiliency of the corridor. corridor, including coordination line 26 with the California Coastal Commission as it relates to the line 27 California coastal zone.
line 28 SEC. 5. The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute line 29 is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable line 30 within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California line 31 Constitution because of the unique need to address the resiliency line 32 and performance of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor.
line 33 SEC. 6. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that line 34 this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to line 35 local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made line 36 pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division line 37 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
O
97 — 7 — SB 1098
Attachment A May 20, 2024 Item 10
1 Evy Escalante
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 11:39 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: 'Laura'; Terry TG. Gaasterland; David Druker
Subject: FW: Red Dot: Item 10, SB1098
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:
Kindly transmit the red dot email below to the City Council.
To: Honorable Mayor and Deputy Mayor and Distinguished Members of the Del Mar City Council:
My name is Shirli Weiss. I am a long-time resident of Del Mar and have practiced law in California for over 40 years. I am knowledgeable about the legislation addressed by Item 10, SB 1098. After in-depth review of the proposed Bill and all LOSSAN sub-committee hearings, resident and fellow attorney Laura Schaefer and I prepared and sent a position paper to the Subcommittee suggesting amendments to the Bill and I spoke at the Subcommittee’s April 29, 2024 hearing in Sacramento.
I support the City Council’s Rail Subcommittee’s proposal that the City support SB 1098 as amended as of May 20, 2024 (the “Bill”). Senator Blakespeare’s office kindly sent me the most current version of the Bill:
“The amendments to SB 1098 are now in print and available HERE.” We know the trains will continue to run on the coastal portions of the LOSSAN corridor until the tracks are relocated. This fact disproportionately affects coastal cities that include Del Mar. Del Mar has been compelled to shoulder more of the burden which include negative coastal consequences that comes with keeping the tracks on the bluffs, than any other SANDAG city. Although not immediately obvious when you first read the proposed Bill, it creates the path by which the Legislature will evaluate what additional construction and reengineering of the coast will be allowed between now and the time that the tracks are relocated.
Every track stabilization effort thus far on the Del Mar coast has involved scarring of the coast with permanent, irreversible, negative changes to beaches and land forms. The original version of the Bill placed the transit districts and railroad operators in the drivers’ seat on recommendations to the Legislature for future train related projects on the coast. Their interests are solely transportation and, in the case of the freight operators, profit.
The amendments to the Bill that the Rail Subcommittee and City Staff have helped achieve make three principle important changes:
(1) First, the amendments add the Coastal Commission as a participant in the planning and recommendation process regarding additional capital projects, which helps to balance the influence of the rail operators and government transportation agencies that were already represented in the legislation; (2) Second, the amendments require that the content of the periodic reports called for by the Legislation include an evaluation of the coastal effects of any proposed projects on the coast at the planning stage, not just the permit or emergency permit stage, and recommendations to address them; (3) Third, the veto power of NCTD and other transit agencies over the contents of the reports to the legislature has been eliminated though they are welcome to comment on the content of the reports.
May 20, 2024 Item 10
2 The reality is that once the trains are moved, our children and grandchildren will be left with irreversible scars on the coast caused by extending the stay of the tracks on the bluffs past the time nature has said “time’s up.” The amendments to SB1098 are important to balance Californian’s strong environmental interest in minimizing the armoring and reengineering of the bluffs and beaches while the trains are allowed to continue to operate on the bluffs.
My thanks to the City Council Rail Subcommittee, the City Staff and especially to Senator Blakespeare’s and her staff for taking action in response to our community’s concerns.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirli Weiss
551 Stratford Court
Del Mar, CA.
858.449.4850
Shirli Fabbri Weiss
Retired Partner
M +1 858 449 4850
[email protected]
DLA Piper LLP (US)
May 20, 2024 Item 10
1 Evy Escalante
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: I am a Short Term Rental Supporter
From: Kimberly Jackson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2024 8:24 AM
To: David Druker <[email protected]>; Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>; Dan Quirk <[email protected]>; Tracy Martinez <[email protected]>; Dwight Worden <[email protected]>; City Manager Mail Box <[email protected]>
Subject: I am a Short Term Rental Supporter
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 Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
Please honor the Tradition of Vacation Rentals here in Del Mar. Here are some standard rules I would recommend/adopt:
-2 per bedroom, plus 2 for the home. No more.
-Quiet hours of 9pm till 9am out of respect for the neighborhood -Follow all city trash rules
-LLCs/Living Trusts/Etc are all normal/acceptable and are the smart way to hold title -When vacation rentals are passed down in families, we need to allow them to continue renting -2 night min length of stay
-24 hour contact available and posted
-Small permit fee once every two years at $100, 3 valid/qualified strikes and you are out See you tomorrow eve,
Kimberly Jackson
FOUNDER
Vacation Rental Management
(503) 957-9354
[email protected]
www.vacationrentalsbykimberly.com
May 20, 2024 Item 11
1 Evy Escalante
From: Debbie Church <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 8:39 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; City Manager Mail Box; Tracy Martinez; Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk; David Druker; Dwight Worden
Subject: Red dot against city agenda item 11
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To the honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,
Unfortunately, I am out of town and unable to make the meeting this evening by zoom.
As you may recall, my family has owned and operated a second home as a vacation rental in Del Mar since the 80s.
Three generations enjoyed this home as a family base for gatherings and getaways over the last 40 years and I’m saddened by your proposed regulation that this home and its grandfather rights will not pass to the next generation upon inheritance. I hope that you will reevaluate that regulation. I believe that grandfather rights should carry forward with the property as is customary with properties. Even if the rights did pass to the next generation, it is still unlikely that the home will continue as an STR since inherited assets tend to be sold and the newly assessed higher property taxes will make the home even less desirable to be kept. But passing the rights, will at least give a family the option to continue the status quo and be able to enjoy their home for future generations.
On the current list of registered STRs, 16 of the 99 registered STRs (basically 16% - or 0.6% of the housing stock) are also primary residences. This means that within a generation (and likely even sooner if the rate of loss is consistent with the reduction from 450 to 99 rentals from 2017 to 2024), only 0.6% of the homes will remain as STRs, which is nowhere close to the proposed allowed 5%. This does not “honor the tradition of vacation rentals” nor recognize the significant “transient” housing as mentioned in the CP.
I think the regulations create a needle that is so hard to pass through that less than 1% of the housing stock will welcome visitors to Del Mar. To correct this, not only should you reconsider passing the grandfather rights with the property, but also consider allowing homes that are not-primary residences, but that are rented for more than 6 months to a long-term tenant also qualify for a permit. Isn’t your goal to maintain housing stock? By doing this, you can maintain housing stock while also “honoring the tradition of vacation rentals.” Thank you for your consideration
Debbie and Brian Church – 27th St
Susan Wasson – 25th St.
May 20, 2024 Item 11
1 Evy Escalante
From: Nancy Stoke <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 12:01 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: 'Nancy Stoke'
Subject: Red Dot Council Agenda #11 May 20 2024
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 Council Members,
I have intentionally been quiet in the discussion of STRs, as my family benefitted from 2-week summer rentals on the hill and in the beach colony during the 1970s; without the exposure to this wonderful town and the ability to rent for the short term that precious vacation time allowed we would not be here. My 40+ year career was as a mortgage lender, so I clearly see both sides of this STR discussion. In reading the matter before you I felt compelled to make a few comments.
When we vacationed in Del Mar in the 1970s STRs were the majority of accommodations used by my family and others as there were less than 100 hotel rooms left after the demo of the Del Mar Hotel and its 250+ rooms. STRs proliferated as residents and property owners found ways to meet demand from thousands of families like mine while generating needed income to pay skyrocketing property taxes (resulting in Prop 13 tax revolt in 1978) and mortgage expense as 30-yr mortgage rates climbed from 9% in 1975 when the Community Plan was adopted to over 17% by 1981.
As we all know, the housing market tanked (or more specifically dropped in value approx. 50% for most homes in Del Mar) in 2008-09 during the Great Financial Crisis that prompted the Fed to cut interest rates to record lows to stimulate the economy. This created a golden opportunity we’d not seen in decades as distressed owners were forced to sell and lower prices and interest rates attracted more buyers. It was actually financially viable to own rental property in Del Mar; the rents would truly support the costs of acquisition, debt service, property taxes, and maintenance of a property. New STR owners began using new internet STR websites to find tenants instead of using local Realtors and their own trusted personal network that were historically used to effectively screen and vet guests.
Residents started complaining and the city sought to ban STRs in 2016-17 when some of the STR “guests” were not guests but rather a nuisance because some property owners didn’t screen nor police their guests well. The longer this discussion has gone on, the more entrenched the positions of your constituents for and against STRs have become. Now that complaints against STR guests have abated with more responsible guests and STR owners, STR opponents and the city council now seem to seek to ban STRs by falsely blaming them for reducing Del Mar’s housing stock. And here you are with tough decisions to make in the face of many competing outside interests. As you deliberate, please remember to put Del Mar first.
Del Mar is a lovely visitor-serving community with wonderful restaurants and shopping and exercise opportunities and most anything a resident or guest would want. We are a mix of full-time and part-time residents including STR guests and daily visitors who all come together to soak up the beauty that is Del Mar. I don’t see STRs as evil – the evil is in the (mostly prior) mis-management of STRs which is solved by the clear May 20, 2024 Item 11
2 identification of what behaviors and activities will cause a STR owner to lose their STR license. Be very clear in stating what will cause revocation, and then enforce it. Problems resolved.
If we are to adequately support our Del Mar merchants/businesses, restricting STRs to only primary residences makes no sense in my mind. STR guests spend a considerable amount of money when they are in town, and to lose that income because the property owner lives out of state or out of the area and utilizes a local manager for their oversight doesn’t make logical sense to me. Many of our north beach owners live out of state in places where there is no state income tax. Many jockeys and trainers and other horsemen and parking attendants who positively impact our economy during the summer and fall racing meets own homes here which they occupy while working at the Del Mar Race Track, and yet are considered full time residents in the Santa Anita Race Track area because they are in Del Mar for less than 6 months. Why prohibit guests from enjoying Del Mar and supporting our merchants just because the owner doesn’t live here full time? If the owner doesn’t follow the rules by hosting guests who don’t follow the rules, pull their license. Please re-think this issue and then remove the primary-only restriction.
Getting deep into the weeds of the ownership structure of the property also makes no sense to me. Del Mar has many ultra-wealthy sophisticated property owners who utilize many types of ownership for many purposes including estate planning. Who are we to mandate what ownership structure they use? Many are wealthy enough that they have no desire to STR their property as they like using it when they want to. They don’t live here full time. They never will, and rather than look at the situation as a loss of long-term housing supply, look at it as a light footprint on our infrastructure and schools and a heavy footprint and big pocketbook supporting our property tax revenues and sales tax and merchant revenues when they are here. And should they wish to STR, welcome them to do so which will provide housing, serve more visitors, and support our merchants; and again, if they don’t follow the rules by hosting guests who don’t follow the rules, pull their license. Please remove the unnecessary ownership vesting restrictions.
As a primary resident of an owner-occupied duplex in RM-West, where is the equity in approving an ordinance that denies me the right to STR the unit I live in while on vacation as well as STR the unit I rent out? If desired, why should I not be allowed to STR both legal units? Do we really want to deny short term housing to visitors to Del Mar? What about the snow-birds who only want to come for 3 weeks? What of our Breeder’s Cup visitors? And family members belonging to residents nearing end of life? Are they not STR welcome? And what about my niece who will inherit my property and move in when I am carried out? Will she not be allowed to STR either of the two units because I died? If I am a bad owner and allow my STR guests to ignore the rules, then you have every right to pull my license (so long as you are consistent in your STR enforcement). Please remove the one-STR-only restriction and termination verbiage; for owners who abide by the license the restriction is not necessary.
As for Council Item 12, the proposal for charging TOT on STRs… it was voted down once already, and I suspect that unless revenue is specifically designated for increased enforcement and Sherriff protection it will be voted down again. I don’t believe a proposal to collect STR TOT to be absorbed as general revenue to pay for other unrelated government expenditures will be supported.
Thank you for listening to my comments. Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Stoke
May 20, 2024 Item 11
1 Evy Escalante
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 12:09 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot; Items 11, 12,
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To: Honorable Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Distinguished Members of the City Council:
My name is Shirli Weiss. I am a long-time Del Mar resident.
In addition to my residence in Del Mar, I own a condominium at Del Mar Woods which I rent out for one to six months at a time.
I believe that the normative definition of short-term rental is a rental for a period of “less than 30 days.” Rentals that have a minimum stay of a month do not have the problems posed by week to week or other shorter term rentals and should not be considered “short term rentals. The city’s proposed short term rental statute definition departs from this norm by requiring owners to rent units for at least 31 days to fall outside the definition of short term rentals. This should be changed. Thus, the highlighted portion of the draft ordinance should be changed to “for less than 30 days,” and the tax statute should be conformed. “Short-Term Rental (STR) means the rental of a dwelling unit, or any portion thereof, for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purposes, for not more than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days. For purposes of this Chapter, Home Exchanges (as defined by this Chapter) are not considered STRs.” ****
“Transient. Any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license or other agreement for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days.”
Thank you.
Respectfully
Shirli Weiss
551 Stratford Ct.
May 20, 2024 Item 11 & 12
1 Evy Escalante
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: 2723 Camino Del Mar Del Mar CA.
Attachments: 0538_001.pdf
From: Richard Langstaff <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 11:55 AM
To: City Manager Mail Box <[email protected]>; David Druker <[email protected]>; Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>; Dan Quirk <[email protected]>; Tracy Martinez <[email protected]>; Dwight Worden <[email protected]>
Subject: 2723 Camino Del Mar Del Mar CA.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
May 19, 2024,
To Whom It May Concern:
2723 Camino Del Mar, Del Mar, California:
- **Ownership History**: The property was purchased by Eleanor Hamilton on August 22, 1988, and was deeded to me on June 19, 2017, following her death.
- **Usage**: It has always been used as a second home and for short-term rentals to help offset maintenance, taxes, insurance, and HOA fees. It is favored for its close access to the ocean. The short-term residents contribute more money to the tax base of Del Mar because people on vacation tend to spend more on going to restaurants and shopping, etc.
- **Location**: Situated between 27th St. and 28th St. on Camino Del Mar, within the Del Mar Beach Colony area.
- **Association**: The property is part of Casa Del Rey, which consists of 16 units. I serve as the treasurer of the board, with Gina Mattern as the current board president. The board is currently doing an excellent job of maintaining and improving the property.
- **Current Rental Market**: There are 17 condominiums actively available for rent in the MLS within the Del Mar Beach Colony.
Therefore, there is no shortage of long-term rentals in the condominium market.
My condominiums are well suited for short-term rentals because of their proximity to the ocean and wonderful ocean views. My unit can allow a family to visit the beautiful beach of Del Mar for a great vacation. - **Property Features**: The property has a one-car carport, limited storage, and no garage. - **Occupancy**: Out of the 16 units in Casa Del Rey, units 13 are used as second homes.
The California Coastal Commission wants people to have access to the ocean for fun and relaxation.
Thank you,
Richard
Please see the attached active lease listing from MLS.
May 20, 2024 Item 11
2 Richard Langstaff II
Partner
626-643-2065
[email protected]
agent lic #01057700
200 South Los Robles Avenue, Suite 100
Pasadena, California 91101
richardlangstaff.com
“I have not verified any of the information contained in those documents that were prepared by other people. You will never receive wire instructions or changes to previously provided wire instructions from me or my team. NEVER WIRE FUNDS PRIOR TO CALLING THE ESCROW OFFICER AT THE PHONE NUMBER PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED TO YOU."
May 20, 2024 Item 11
May 20, 2024 Item 11
May 20, 2024 Item 11
1 Evy Escalante
Subject: FW: Red Dot May 20th City Council Meeting - Short Term Rentals From: Gina Corsini Mattern <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 1:17 PM
To: David Druker <[email protected]>; Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>; Dan Quirk <[email protected]>; Tracy Martinez <[email protected]>; Dwight Worden <[email protected]>; City Manager Mail Box <[email protected]>
Subject: Red Dot May 20th City Council Meeting - 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,
On behalf of the Costa Del Rey Homeowners Association, we are writing to request an exemption from the proposed rule that STRs will not be allowed in condominiums.
We own the condominium units located at 2705-2733 Camino del Mar. The association has 16 units. Located one block to the sand, in the most beach accessible part of Del Mar, The Beach Colony (or North Beach area). These condominiums were built in 1972 to be used as 2nd homes and/or vacation rentals. Our CCR’s expressly allow short term vacation renting. Of the 16 units, 11 are used as short-term rentals and have been vacation rentals for the past 20+ years. 3 units are long term, these tenants have also been in place for 20+ years. 1 unit is only used as a 2nd home and 1 as a primary residence. Costa del Rey has not had any impact of displacing long-term housing. In fact, we had one owner attempt to secure a long-term tenant to no avail. The building is unable to obtain market rents for long term tenants as we lack the amenities these tenants would expect (no garage, little storage, 1 parking space, no facilities ie: gym, pool, spa, tennis). FYI, rental rates in San Diego are down 2.8% year over year. San Diego Rental Report May 2024 Your proposed rules state short term vacation renting will not be allowed in condominium complexes. This rule will have an enormous impact on the low to middle income visitor. Rates for a 2 bedroom condo in this building start in the high $200s/low $300 per night. Del Mar DOES NOT have any alternative in this price range for a family of 4. The average nightly rate will rise considerably without these entry level rates. Your proposed rules ensure that Del Mar will become an enclave only for the very wealthy. Who else will be able to afford to visit? Your proposed tax of 13.5% will only further push the middle-income visitor out of the market. Is this the community you are looking to create? The City of Encinitas has made an exemption for Seabluffe Homeowners Association to allow for short term rentals operations.
“The only community exempt from the new proposed regulations is the Sea Bluffs community, which was historically developed specifically to accommodate vacation-style units.” Coast News April 26, 2022 The Seabluffe non-hosted short-term rentals count towards the total percentage cap within the Leucadia community; Encinitas City Council Meeting October 6, 2022.
Costa del Rey Homeowners Association respectfully is asking for the same exemption.
Respectfully,
Costa del Rey Homeowner Association
May 20, 2024 Item 11
1 Evy Escalante
From: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: STR Red Dot - May 20th meeting
From: Gina Corsini Mattern <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 1:39 PM
To: David Druker <[email protected]>; Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>; Dan Quirk <[email protected]>; Tracy Martinez <[email protected]>; Dwight Worden <[email protected]>; City Manager Mail Box <[email protected]>
Subject: STR Red Dot - May 20th meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council Members:
After reviewing the Council’s “ rules and regulations”, I've concluded these proposed items are nothing more than “a wolf in sheep's clothing” . Restricting the privilege to rent your property only to “primary residence” owners, severely limits who and how the unit will be rented. Primary residences have restrictions by their lenders, insurance companies and IRS on how many days per year they can rent before the property is no longer considered a primary residence. That number is usually less than 28 days in a year. This is the exact number the Council had proposed under their 28/7 ordinance. Given the makeup of Del Mar where the community was established as a seasonal destination, this restriction eliminates the majority of properties in Del Mar. It's a ban, once again, redressed to fool the unwitting into thinking Del Mar is attempting to listen to their constituents.
Also, your “change of ownership” restriction, again, will essentially eliminate STRs via attrition. It is flawed as “change of ownership” does not always represent the sale of property. Many properties change title, but are passed on to family members, this would rob the family of continued vacation rental opportunities. In the 8 years the Council has been working to come up with a “plan”, the heavy hand approach is still the rule of thumb. Council has not heeded the advice that Staff presented back in July 2023 where they laid out that Coastal Commission prefers the least restrictive approach to start.
The percentage cap you are proposing does not reflect an accurate representation of rentals. You already know from your paid research and registry that there are more rentals in existence than your percentage is proposing. "Grandfathering" existing rentals is a condition of Coastal Commission, not necessarily a willingness on Council's part. Carving out North (and South) Beach areas with a higher percentage cap (30% like Mission Beach and areas of Encinitas) was requested repeatedly, yet not included in the proposal.
The most egregious of these restrictive rules is the TOT tax to be added. First you want to rob property owners, who pay property taxes, of their current right to rent their property. Second, you want to grant the privilege (you just took from all property owners) and give that right to a select few who meet a stringent and highly limiting criteria. Third, you want to add an additional TOT TAX to those who you grant this “privilege”. While it is thought that the TOT tax is passed on to the guest, it in fact, finds its way out of the owners pocket via reduced rates, less occupancy or both.
May 20, 2024 Item 11
2 --
May 20, 2024 Item 11
1 Evy Escalante
From: susfeipet <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 2:49 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: red dot comment
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor, Council Members and Staff,
I write to you as a former long-time resident and property owner of my family’s beach house that we’ve built on our lot in 1959
My parents were members of the Del Mar Community Plan Taskforce that created our cherished Community Plan in the 1970s. They and other members of the Taskforce, especially my mother who also served on the planning commission and city council, recognized STRs as part of the fabric of our community and even offered them contrary to the misrepresentations now being made that STRs were never an allowed use in residential zones.
The new proposed draconian ordinances, especially banning STRs of nonresident property owners, will rip the fabric of our community and injure many long-term property owners like my family. My brothers and I inherited our family beach house which we have kept as our now far-flung family’s gathering place for reunions and to visit our very elderly father who lives up the hill in Del Mar.
Using our beach house as a STR gives us the flexibility to visit when needed for our father’s medical care, provide social support as he is medically fragile and cannot socialize outside his home, and supplement our income needs as my brothers and I pursued careers in the arts and serving the medical needs of the underserved in low-income areas, respectively. We are not wealthy unlike many of the new property owners who can afford to keep their vacation homes vacant.
While we appreciate the proposed grandfathering rights offered so that we can continue offering STRs, there is nothing to prevent future city councils from revoking them as the city falsely claims that they were never allowed in residential zones. Thus, we are being granted a privilege, not a permanent property right. This is not fair to us nor future owners who will be explicitly prohibited from using their vacation home as a STR.
May 20, 2024 Item 11
2 As a result of this ban, most of Del Mar’s historic STRs will be eliminated when owners like me sell and the new owners lose the right to offer STRs. Unlike us, the new wealthy owners can afford to keep their beach houses vacant so our community will suffer as the beach neighborhoods will be filled with empty, homes and our shops and restaurants will lose their best customers who are STR tenants.
In summary, the city’s proposed STR ban, even with limited grandfathering rights, does not honor Del Mar’s history as a visitor-serving community filled with STRs nor the Community Plan that my parents helped create.
Please follow our Community Plan that has always allowed STRs and follow the Coastal Act’s requirement to preserve and protect visitor-serving public coastal access.
Best regards,
Susan Feierabend
Daughter of Ivo and Rosalind Feierabend, former Del Mar Planning Commissioner, Mayor and City Council Member in the 1970s and 1980s.
Ivo feierabend was a founding member of Friends of Del Mar which incorporated the city of Del Mar and protected the open space May 20, 2024 Item 11
1 Evy Escalante
From: Bob Gregson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 10:01 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Jen Grove
Subject: Short Term Rentals in Del Mar
Attachments: L'Auberge Del Mar_20240520_095734.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
Please see attached document lending support for transient occupancy tax on Del Mar short-term rentals with opposition to inclusion of Resort Fees in TOT calculation on behalf of L'Auberge Del Mar.
Thank you,
Bob
Bob Gregson
General Manager
1540 Camino Del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014
(o) 858-793-6401
[email protected]
View our Digital Concierge Magazine
May 20, 2024 Item 12
May 20, 2024 Item 12
May 20, 2024 Item 12
1 Evy Escalante
From: Angelina Neglia <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2024 2:16 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: David Druker; Terry Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; Dan Quirk; Dwight Worden Subject: Red Dot Letter submission for Item 13, Monday May 20, City Council Meeting Attachments: Fairgrounds red dot.docx
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.
Please find my letter attached as I cannot make it to the meeting.
Kind Regards,
Angelina
Angelina Neglia
Healthcare/Educational Advocate
[email protected]
(858) 945 8827
CALTASH 2024 Recipient, Advocating for People with Disabilities 2024 Nominee, Senator Blakespear’s “Women Who Inspire” in our community May 20, 2024 Item 13
Angelina Neglia
1955 Seaview Avenue
Del Mar, CA. 92014
[email protected]
(858) 945 8827
RED DOT LETTER, ITEM 13,
Del Mar City Council Meeting, May 20th, 2024
Topic Related to: “Concerns Related to State Economic Development Department (EDD) Jobs Data and Del Mar 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Allocation”
Dear Del Mar Council Members,
My name is Angelina Neglia and I have lived in Del Mar for more than 20 years. I am responding to this continued issue of the flawed job counts that SANDAG assigned to Del Mar in 2018. SANDAG counted every job, whether it was 3 days, 3 weeks or 3 months, at the Fairgrounds as EQUAL to a FULLTIME year-round job, or a part-time year-round job.
Please review the Payroll numbers from the Fairgrounds below;
1. “District’s covered-employee payroll for 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014.
These numbers have not doubled as SANDAG is trying to state.
2. “District’s proportionate share of net pension liability as a percentage of it covered-employee payroll”. These numbers went down in 2018 based on employees, not doubled as SANDAG is trying to state.
May 20, 2024 Item 13
It is clear from the Fairgrounds Financial report, showing the last 5 years, their full-time employees didn’t double as SANDAG is stating. It is clear from speaking with the staff at the Fairgrounds that approximately 2,000 of the short-term, transient jobs are held by at most 200 individuals who work multiple jobs at multiple events.
Another example (and there are several), SANDAG counted over 100 jobs from a business that closed decades ago. One more, several hundred jobs are registered with businesses that use residential home addresses as the EDD reporting address; for example, one home in an R1 neighborhood had over 60 jobs that counted towards Del Mar’s RHNA. These examples should be easy to verify for SANDAG.
SANDAG’s decision to include these jobs doubled Del Mar’s RHNA assignment to 163 (31 above moderate, 31 moderate, 64 low, and 37 very low), plus 12 lower income carryover from the 5th Cycle.
An easy way for SANDAG to have excluded the jobs would be to use all four quarters of the year, not just the summer quarter, to do job counts. When Del Mar finally received the requested EDD data from EDD late in 2023, it was straightforward to calculate which jobs were short-term and transient. Even the Fairground’s Financial reports discuss and report, the different counts for full time, short-term jobs. Why didn’t SANDAG use those numbers? May 20, 2024 Item 13
I am writing this RED DOT to request that the City Prepare a Proposed Amendment to the Housing Element to submit to HCD for consideration. It would cut the 163 units in half, rounding up by category, plus the 12 carryovers, to a new total of 95 units with 19 very low, 44 low, 16 moderate, and 16 above moderate.
The reason this is important is because of the new State Law that penalizes every jurisdiction midway through the cycle (end of year4) if half the RHNA numbers from all categories has not been met in the first four years. The penalty is Builders Remedy throughout the City.
In Summary, please see below the TEMPORARY/PART TIME job openings at the Del Mar Fairgrounds for 2020 (as they state on their website they hired 1,200 seasonal workers), and 2024 season as they need over 1,000 seasonal workers.
These are not full-time jobs! We are asking for a transparent review of the facts to submit a proposed amendment to HCD. Del Mar has been burdened and penalized with these incorrect numbers long enough, and now is the time to remedy these inaccuracies with the facts. See below.
Kind Regards,
Angelina Neglia
May 20, 2024 Item 13
May 20, 2024 Item 13
Current Openings
Thanks for checking out our job openings. See something that interests you? Apply here. Additional San Diego County Fair Job Opportunities
Del Mar
California
119-Day Temporary
Agriculture and Education
Assistant Coordinator - Exhibits
Del Mar
California
Agriculture and Education
119-Day Temporary
Exhibit Attendant
Del Mar
California
Agriculture and Education
119-Day Temporary
Exhibit Attendant - Livestock Barn Crew
Del Mar
California
Agriculture and Education
119-Day Temporary
May 20, 2024 Item 13
Exhibit Attendant Lead
Del Mar
California
Agriculture and Education
119-Day Temporary
Guest Services Representative
Del Mar
California
Agriculture and Education
119-Day Temporary
Laborer
Del Mar
California
Agriculture and Education
119-Day Temporary
Box Office
Assistant Coordinator- Cashiers
Del Mar
California
Box Office
119-Day Temporary
Cashier- Midway Carnival
Del Mar
California
Box Office
119-Day Temporary
Cashier- Parking
Del Mar
California
Box Office
119-Day Temporary
Cashier- Ticketing
Del Mar
May 20, 2024 Item 13
California
Box Office
119-Day Temporary
Facilities
Carpenter
Del Mar
California
Facilities
119-Day Temporary
Electrician
Del Mar
California
Facilities
119-Day Temporary
Janitor
Del Mar
California
Facilities
119-Day Temporary
Laborer
Del Mar
California
Facilities
119-Day Temporary
Mechanic
Del Mar
California
Facilities
119-Day Temporary
Painter
Del Mar
California
Facilities
May 20, 2024 Item 13
119-Day Temporary
Plumber
Del Mar
California
Facilities
119-Day Temporary
Welder
Del Mar
California
Facilities
119-Day Temporary
Finance
Auditor - Concessions
Del Mar
California
Finance
119-Day Temporary
Production
Cart Driver
Del Mar
California
Production
119-Day Temporary
Event Technician
Del Mar
California
Production
119-Day Temporary
Production Coordinator
Del Mar
California
Production
119-Day Temporary
May 20, 2024 Item 13
Stagehand
Del Mar
California
Production
119-Day Temporary
Public Safety
Ambassador
Del Mar
California
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
Assistant Coordinator- Dispatcher
Del Mar
California
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
Cart Driver- Shuttles
Del Mar
California
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
Clerk- Medical
Del Mar
California
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
Dispatcher
Del Mar
California
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
May 20, 2024 Item 13
Incident Investigator
Del Mar
California
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
Parking Attendant
Del Mar
California
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
Parking Attendant Lead
Del Mar
California
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
Public Safety Associate
Del Mar
California
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
Shuttle Ambassador
Del Mar
California
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
Shuttles- Assistant Coordinator
Del Mar
California
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
Traffic Controller
Del Mar
California
May 20, 2024 Item 13
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
Tram Driver
Del Mar
California
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
Sales and Rentals
Assistant Coordinator- Sales and Rentals
Del Mar
California
Sales and Rentals
119-Day Temporary
OPEN POSITIONS
Agriculture and Education
Assistant Coordinator - ExhibitsDel Mar, California
Exhibit AttendantDel Mar, California
Exhibit Attendant - Livestock Barn CrewDel Mar, California Exhibit Attendant LeadDel Mar, California
Guest Services RepresentativeDel Mar, California
LaborerDel Mar, California
Box Office
Assistant Coordinator- CashiersDel Mar, California
Cashier- Midway CarnivalDel Mar, California
Cashier- ParkingDel Mar, California
Cashier- TicketingDel Mar, California
Facilities
CarpenterDel Mar, California
ElectricianDel Mar, California
JanitorDel Mar, California
LaborerDel Mar, California
Mechanic Del Mar, California
PainterDel Mar, California
PlumberDel Mar, California
May 20, 2024 Item 13
WelderDel Mar, California
Finance
Auditor - ConcessionsDel Mar, California
Production
Cart DriverDel Mar, California
Event TechnicianDel Mar, California
Production CoordinatorDel Mar, California
StagehandDel Mar, California
Public Safety
AmbassadorDel Mar, California
Assistant Coordinator- DispatcherDel Mar, California
Cart Driver- ShuttlesDel Mar, California
Clerk- MedicalDel Mar, California
DispatcherDel Mar, California
Incident Investigator Del Mar, California
Parking AttendantDel Mar, California
Parking Attendant LeadDel Mar, California
Public Safety AssociateDel Mar, California
Shuttle AmbassadorDel Mar, California
Shuttles- Assistant Coordinator Del Mar, California
Traffic ControllerDel Mar, California
Tram DriverDel Mar, California
Sales and Rentals
Assistant Coordinator- Sales and RentalsDel Mar, California
Additional San Diego County Fair Job OpportunitiesDel Mar, California Powered by
May 20, 2024 Item 13
May 20, 2024 Item 13
1 Evy Escalante
From: Kerridge, Carol <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2024 4:52 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot #13 RHNA Assignment
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,
In reading through the packet for the City Council meeting for tomorrow's meeting (May 20th), I am confused by the RHNA assignment that has been given to our town. It seems to me as though there has been an important concern for some time about the controversy over the number of employed persons in the City of Del Mar. I do understand that this number is necessary for the assignment for the RHNA count, but I don't understand, as a resident of Del Mar, WHY there is a controversy.
I do however realize that this controversy is important to resolve for it creates a real conundrum for amount of affordable housing units we need to comply to the state mandate. I believe this is an important enough issue (the number of actual employees in Del Mar) that it needs to be resolved and resolved as quickly as possible.
I trust that you understand and will decide to resolve this situation effectively.
Sincerely,
Carol Kerridge
May 20, 2024 Item 13
May 20, 2024
Del Mar City Council
Del Mar City Hall
1050 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Dear Members of the Del Mar City Council,
I am writing to express my concern regarding the inaccurate jobs number assigned to Del Mar by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and the subsequent impact on our Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) figures. I urge the City Council to take immediate and decisive action, including legal measures, to suspend any by-right development driven by these inaccuracies and to work towards rectifying the erroneous RHNA numbers.
As it stands, Del Mar's current affordable housing requirements are significantly inflated due to the erroneous job data provided by SANDAG. The overestimation of job numbers has led to a RHNA figure approximately twice what it should be. This unfair disparity puts undue pressure on our city to meet unrealistic housing targets.
To address this issue effectively, I recommend the following steps:
1. Action Against HCD: The City should request or take legal action against the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to suspend any by-right development based on the current, inaccurate RHNA numbers. This action will prevent unwarranted development that could significantly alter the character of Del Mar.
2. Collaboration with SANDAG: The City should work closely with SANDAG to reassess and correct the job data. Accurate job numbers are essential to ensuring our RHNA figures reflect Del Mar's housing needs.
3. Pursue a New RHNA Number: Once the accurate jobs data is established, the City should do everything in its power to prepare a revised RHNA number for the current cycle. This action will require prompt and proactive engagement with relevant authorities to ensure our housing targets are fair and achievable.
4. Immediate Action Required: The City must act now to have the RHNA by-right development requirements suspended until after the next RHNA cycle is completed.
Under the current RHNA requirements, if the City fails to achieve at least 50% of our current RHNA allocation, the result could be significantly increased by-right development across Del Mar. A lower, more accurate RHNA number and suspending byright development are essential to mitigate these risks and to ensure we meet our obligations without compromising the integrity of our community.
By taking these steps, the City Council will demonstrate its commitment to ensuring that Del Mar's housing policies are based on accurate data and reflect the genuine needs of our residents.
Please prioritize this issue and take immediate action to correct this significant discrepancy.
May 20, 2024 Item 13
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. I look forward to seeing the City Council's prompt and decisive response.
Sincerely,
Mark Handzel
100 12th Street
May 20, 2024 Item 13
1 Evy Escalante
From: jas.grewaldm <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 10:18 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Ashley Jones; Terry TG. Gaasterland; david druker; Tracy Martinez; Dwight Worden; Dan Quirk
Subject: Re: Red Dot Correspondence for Item 13 for Del Mar Council May 20, 2024 Agenda Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Drucker and Council Members,
Three years ago, I was pleased to hear that Councilwoman Martinez (who campaigned on this issue) and Deputy Mayor Gasterland would research and determine where the SANDAG job numbers came from which resulted in the City of Del Mar's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) number of 163 units of affordable housing plus 12 carryover from a previous cycle for a total of 175.
I, along with many many residents, had demanded in 2018 that our Council representative to SANDAG, Ellie Haviland, challenge the job numbers being allocated to Del Mar for the 6th cycle housing element but she refused to do so, in fact, she embraced the numbers, and the majority of the City Council at that time supported her. It made no logical sense to most of us in this town that Del Mar had 4000 jobs and no one on our Council could tell us where these jobs were. Staff did make a couple attempts to get information from SANDAG but they refused to give it citing confidentiality.
Because of SANDAG's high RHNA allocation of affordable housing units to Del Mar, based on flawed and incorrect numbers and past Council passively accepting them, Del Mar has been forced to submit the 6th Housing Element which requires many actions including upzoning our NC, PC, CC zones to 20 acres a unit that were not necessary for the high RHNA allocation had the job numbers been accurate. Further, over time, due to "by right development" in these zones, if these actions continue, the character of our town will disappear, congestion will be created due to density in a small area, views will be destroyed for many residents and our infrastructure will be stressed to the limit - all of which will negatively impact the essence of Del Mar's Community plan.
Now, a new threat lingers. A New State law will penalize every jurisdiction midway through the housing cycle (end of Year 4) if half the RHNA numbers from all categories have not been met in the first four years. The penalty is Builders Remedy throughout the City. This would be disastrous for our little town making it Christmas for the development community and the only winners will be developers with millions in their pockets and both Del Mar residents and families needing affordable housing will be the losers!!
We must fight this new threat and I request Council to address the concerns related to State Economic Development Department (EDD) Jobs Data used by SANDAG which forced the city to have an enormous and unreasonable 6th Cycle RHNA Allocation. It has taken 3 years to get the EDD data and I hope all of you will be as shocked as I was to see how SANDAG came up with 4000 jobs for City of Del Mar. It tantamounts to total incompetence on part of SANDAG. For example,
1. SANDAG counted every job -- whether it was for 3 days, 3 weeks or 3 months at the Fairgrounds as a job equal to a full-time year-round job or a part-time year-round job.
2. The Fairgrounds confirmed that the approximately 2000 of the short-term, transient jobs at the Fairgrounds are actually held at the most by 200 individuals who work multiple of these event-driven jobs. SANDAG easily could have used a more accurate and simple method that counted jobs in all four quarters of the year, not just the summer quarter at the Fairgrounds when the Fairgrounds are the busiest. They did not! May 20, 2024 Item 13
2 3. Another example (and there are several) is that SANDAG counted over 100 jobs from a business that closed decades ago.
4. Several hundred jobs are registered with businesses that use a residential home addresses as the EDD reporting address; for example, one home in an R1 neighborhood had 60 jobs that counted toward Del Mar's RHNA.
SANDAG's decision to include these incorrect jobs doubled Del Mar's RHNA assignment to 163 (31 above moderate, 31 moderate, 64 low, and 37 very low) plus 12 lower income units were carryover from the 5th Cycle for a total of 175.
As chair of the City's 6th Housing Element Cycle Task force in 2020, please know that many residents want to create affordable housing in Del Mar but for a small town with 1.7 square miles of land, we do not have the capacity required for 175 units.
I urge you to please submit an amendment to HCD for the 6th cycle housing element using the correct numbers that have been proven by the housing liaisons and staff on an expeditious basis.
Thank you.
Jas Grewal
Resident for 32 years
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
May 20, 2024 Item 13
1 Evy Escalante
From: deftos <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 10:33 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Item #13
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Del Mar City Council,
Thank you City staff and Housing Subcommittee Councilmembers for your time and effort in researching the allocation methodology that led to Del Mar’s 6th Cycle Housing Element RHNA allocation and for raising concerns regarding this to SANDAG and others.
The allocation methodology requires the City of Del Mar to provide affordable housing units outside of the Fairgrounds property for jobs located inside the Fairgrounds property, including part-time/seasonal jobs. The Fairgrounds comprises a substantial portion of City land, but the City has no jurisdiction over this. While the Fairgrounds does provide some housing units for its part-time/seasonal workers, since these do not meet standards for low-income housing and are not used by the same person year-round, they apparently do not count as affordable housing units for RHNA purposes. Unfortunately, the Fairgrounds has leveraged consideration of the possibility of locating low-income housing on the Fairgrounds property to further its interests in other matters.
Using data sets for all four quarters of the calendar year not just the 3rd quarter should help remedy the situation for the 7th Cycle Housing Element. If it is possible to do so without substantially jeopardizing its current certification status, the City should seek to amend our 6th Cycle Housing Element to eliminate the RHNA units associated with part-time/seasonal jobs at the Fairgrounds. In addition, the City should lobby to change the law and/or allocation methodology to exclude consideration of part-time/seasonal jobs or require the Fairgrounds to provide acceptable affordable housing units on its own property to account for these. The RHNA obligation is from State law. A State agency such as the Fairgrounds that occupies a substantial portion of City land and accounts for a substantial portion of City counted jobs should not be exempt from providing required associated affordable housing on its own land to account for these. The host City should not be required to provide these instead.
The City of Del Mar would have more leverage if it could produce some low-income housing. It has recently taken painful steps towards this goal by rezoning substantial areas to be eligible for density bonus projects with low-income units. The possibility that ADUs could be considered low-income housing units, such as Encinitas apparently does, should be further explored. If an ADU is occupied by an adult family member such as a parent or child or by a student at rent rates consistent with low-income housing, could these units count towards the City’s low-income RHNA units?
Thanks for your consideration,
Michael Deftos
May 20, 2024 Item 13