Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda
Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
June 16, 2025 City Council Meeting
INFORMATION RECEIVED
AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA
WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Ian Hembree <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 12:12 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Terry Gaasterland; John Spelich; Dan Quirk; Tracy Martinez; Ashley Jones; Leslie Devaney
Cc: Ashlea Houston; Kristine Schindler
Subject: City of Del Mar Bike/E-bike Ordinance Item 8 6/16/25 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.
The City of Del Mar City Council and other Pertinent Parties, My name is Ian Hembree and I am the Advocacy and Community Manager with the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition. I am submitting a comment for consideration relating to item 8 on the June 16, 2025 City Council agenda.
--
The San Diego County Bicycle Coalition is opposed to the proposed ordinance as it unduly restricts the placement of bikes on sidewalks in most places. We believe bike/e-bike regulations that are more restrictive than Solana Beach and Encinitas could create confusion from the Sheriff's office when policing across city boundaries. It is our desire that Del Mar be in harmony with these two cities. We also believe that the proposed sidewalk riding exceptions are too vague and up to the interpretation of law enforcement and cyclists, which could create scenarios where cyclists are punished for riding on the sidewalk in conditions they consider hazardous, but the law enforcement officer does not. It was mentioned during the June 2nd meeting that common sense enforcement is desired. We believe that common sense enforcement is most likely with objective standards and wording. We restate our preference that bikes be prohibited only on sidewalks in commercial corridors and in identified (measured by a third party) heavy pedestrian traffic corridors. --
--
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Ian Hembree (he/him)
Advocacy & Community Manager
[email protected]
(858) 255-4060
➢ Advocacy Letters ➢ Ambassador Program
June 16, 2025 Item 8
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Camilla Rang <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 5:31 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 9, correction in letter.
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.
Dear City Council,
I strongly support the letter our City Managers have put before you in regards to a response to SANDAG's NOP for the 06.16.25 meeting. Fantastic research.
There are one small error though that needs to be fixed in the letter: Last page (Page 13) under Del Mar Bluff Double Track Reinforcement: change "nothing to noting". Right now it reads "it is worth NOTHING that this alternative was previously studied and dismissed".
Another suggestion: add "such as the Northern Yellow Line" to the last sentence of San Dieguito Bridge to I5 Alignment". Page 12.
Sincerely,
Camilla Rang
June 16, 2025 Item 9
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Kerridge, Carol <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2025 10:25 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Letter for ITEM #9
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 Honorable City Council Members,
First, I am grateful to you, and our Staff, along with the Special Legal Counsel for the request of SANDAG to have the City of Del Mar be the Lead Agency overseeing the environmental review of the LOSSAN project in our area.
I understand that the SANDAG Environmental Report in the NOP states they will review the safety risks of creating a tunnel throughout any of the options they have put forth, but I wonder if they realize that the cumulative impacts of safety risks throughout the Del Mar hillside are mounting.
Geologists tell us that in our region the coastal hillside areas are made of more sedimentary (softer) rock with the harder (more solid) rock at the base. But does SANDAG understand that on our hillside, similar to our bluffs, we are experiencing an increase in erosion and that several mudslides have already occurred in these sedimentary areas. Along with these issues, some residents have noted sink holes and flooding on their property as the weather patterns are changing.
Should a tunnel be decided on ANY location on our hillside? How will the seismic vibrations of trains affect the higher sedimentary geological area of the hillside even if tunnels are built under the more solid deep rock? And how far away will the rumble of the trains be felt and heard? Considering the sedimentary geological areas of the hillside, how will it withstand the weight of the proposed train travel of 111 trips per 24 hours, particularly the 11 freight train trips? The Bureau of Transportation Statistics reports each freight train engine weighs 200-240 tons. The empty freight train cars weigh 25-30 tons each, and with the information given to us from the Department of Defense, the proposed transport of military TANKS weigh approximately 60-74 tons each. This could be as much as 94 tons PER military freight car. The train will have multiple cars, a burden on our hillside never before imagined.
The DOD spokesperson reported they need to move equipment from Camp Pendelton to the San Diego Bay, but which route it takes is not prescribed as long as it is safe. There ARE safer routes without impacts to our hillside, our homes and our community.
Has SANDAG taken any consideration of these issues as they study the LOSSAN plan for our region? Carol Kerridge
June 16, 2025 Item 9
2 Del Mar
June 16, 2025 Item 9
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Michael Deftos <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 9:38 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Item 9 City Council Meeting 6/16
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.
Del Mar City Council,
I support Item 9. Thank you for strongly advocating for the interests of Del Mar.
Michael Deftos
June 16, 2025 Item 9
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Angelina Neglia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 10:09 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Ashley Jones
Subject: LOSSAN Rail alignment comment letter for tonight's CC meeting.
Attachments: June 2025 Coalition for Safer Trains.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.
Hello to you all,
Please find attached my letter to be submitted regarding the LOSSAN rail alignment discussion item tonight.
Thanks for your consideration..
Angie
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”
June 16, 2025 Item 9
Coalition for Safer Trains
Angelina Neglia
[email protected]
(858) 945 8827
June 16th, 2025
Dear Honorable Del Mar City Council Members;
Item: LOSSAN Rail Alignment Topic
Our Coalition thanks Del Mar for your in-depth and thoughtful response to the SANDAG NOP. I have the following comments.
As stated in the response the Del Mar NOP response, and also stated in the SANDAG NOP the process is a public process that provides stakeholders the opportunity to inform what alignment alternatives will be included in the environmental review, the environmental concerns and potential impacts to be studied, and the opportunity to provide general feedback, questions and comments about the project and impact on our city.
As you know the Coalition for Safer Trains has been closely involved working with SANDAG providing alignment options that the public wants SANDAG to include in this NOP. Even though our Coalition pushed SANDAG hard to include our Northern Yellow Line, it was not included in the short list. Our alignment put forth to SANDAG is the only alignment that doesn’t involve eminent domain, the taking of resident’s homes and businesses, doesn’t put a portal near homes, doesn’t put a tunnel and freight trains under homes and under the entire length of Del Mar. Our alignment utilizes public land, and doesn’t involve adding more infrastructure in our lagoons. Our alignment links up to the SANDAG I-5 alternative which has already been studies.
We agree with the Del Mar NOP response, that the disproportionate destruction of Del Mar would happen if any of the SANDAG alignments are built. We also agree that Del mar should be the responsible Agency for this project, given the impacts, easements and decisions the city and residents will need to make. The city will be impacted, taking homes and business, financially June 16, 2025 Item 9
impacting the city and our businesses. The city would be at risk for any emergency or first responder situation given SANDAG will virtually seal off the northern and southern access to our city for over a decade. We cannot let SANDAG railroad our town, bury it financially, and take our resident’s homes and businesses when there are less impactful alignments presented.
We cannot impress enough that the Del Mar NOP response recommends SANDAG seriously review and include in the EIR, the Northern Yellow Line created by the Coalition for Safer Trains.
Given the issues the Del Mar NOP response has put forth this is the only alignment that protects Del Mar.
Kind Regards,
Angelina Neglia
Coalition for Safer Trains
June 16, 2025 Item 9
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 10:35 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Dan Quirk; John Spelich; Tracy Martinez; Terry Gaasterland; 'Ralph Hicks' Subject: June 16, 2025 City Council meeting, Item 9
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 Members of the City Council,
I am a long-time resident of Del Mar. To summarize at the outset, the one word I have in response to the City’s draft comment letter on the updated NOP is BRAVO! The letter is strong and, well researched and takes the appropriate position that the City and not SANDAG should be lead agency. It’s the first time I have really felt that we stand up for ourselves and strike a blow against forces that seem bent on destroying our city in order to to aid the rail industry agenda. Overall, the tone of the letter is perfect and the points are well developed. Here are my comments on a few specific areas:
1. I don’t think it is a given that in this circumstance, the Surface Transportation Board (“STB”)has plenary authority over rail expansion projects and we should not say that. I think that goes too far. In August of 2020, NCTD filed a petition for declaratory relief against the City and the Coastal Commission asking that the STB declare that federal law (the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act or “ICCTA”) preempted state environmental laws on all current and future projects on the Del Mar Bluffs arguing they would affect rail transportation governed by the ICCTA and the STB. The STB ruled the opposite. It held that where a project is partially federally funded, federal law (the Coastal Zone Management Act) requires that the project sponsor seek concurrence from the Coastal Commission with the Coastal Act. See, Decision of the STB in Petition No.
FD36433. Thus, the STB itself has ruled that the Coastal Commission has authority over certain aspects of projects that affect rail expansion. This point should be made because we do not concede that the STB has plenary authority here over a rail expansion project.
2. The letter points out that no project has been identified, only a series of alternatives. I think that the upshot of this argument however, if accepted is that SANDAG engineers, which clearly have favored rail interests over avoiding adverse community impacts, will select the Camino Del Mar route or the Canyon Crest route as the project. Do we want to force them to elect that before the EIR? We should carefully consider and if we make this argument we should be prepared for the next step: that SANDAG engineers will select the most destructive route as the project and be motivated to undermine the alternatives.
3. I am sure our lawyers are giving thought to what the next step is if SANDAG rejects these arguments which we can anticipate they may. Do you sue now for declaratory relief to avoid an EIR conducted under the wrong Lead, or wait until the EIR when a court might be more motivated to avoid a do over?
4. That’s all I have for now (I may have more comments later!), there are a couple of typos, I will send those to the city manager.
Again, Bravo and Brava!. The letter is a needed example of the City Council working together on the most important issue affecting our City.
Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
June 16, 2025 Item 9
2 Shirli Weiss
Shirli Fabbri Weiss
Retired Partner
M +1 858 449 4850
[email protected]
DLA Piper LLP (US)
June 16, 2025 Item 9
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Camilla Rang <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 5:04 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 10
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.
Dear City Council,
I strongly oppose to going through with item 10. Please stop wasting our money on ridiculous witch hunts. Enough is enough. Solve it within yourself. You are all educated people plus that we have a city lawyer that can help out finding a no-cost and not cumbersome solution. You're going too far.
Sincerely,
Camilla Rang
June 16, 2025 Item 10
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Tate Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 6:41 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Tracy Martinez; John Spelich; Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk Subject: Red Dot Agenda Item 10 - Potential Conflict of Interest Involving Mayor Gaasterland 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.
Red Dot Agenda Item 10 – Potential Conflict of Interest Involving Mayor Gaasterland I have reviewed Agenda Item 10—Potential Conflict of Interest Involving Mayor Gaasterland Related to the City’s Short-Term Rental Regulations—with deep concern. This is an unfortunate but necessary inflection point for the City of Del Mar, one that calls for integrity, clarity, and leadership. It represents a most serious governance issue—one that will continue to impact the image of our City. How we respond now will shape our credibility, our legal posture, and our civic identity.
I want to express my sincere appreciation to Deputy Mayor Tracy Martinez and Councilmember John Spelich for their integrity, courage, and commitment to principled governance. Their decision to bring this matter forward— despite the discomfort it may cause—is a testament to their public duty and to their understanding that transparency is the cornerstone of public trust.
In addition to fully supporting the proposed referral to appropriate oversight bodies—including the Fair Political Practices Commission, the District Attorney’s Political Integrity Unit, the State Attorney General, and the San Diego County Grand Jury—I respectfully urge the Council to take the following immediate steps to reinforce ethical accountability and institutional integrity:
1. Immediate ratification of the adopted Short-Term Rental (STR) Ordinance, to ensure procedural validity and mitigate the risk of retroactive legal challenges;
2. Updated and certified Form 700 filings by all Councilmembers, reflecting current holdings and affirming disclosure compliance;
3. Mandatory governance and ethics training for all Councilmembers within 60 days, conducted by an independent authority, covering topics such as conflict-of-interest law, fiduciary duty, recusal standards, and Brown Act obligations followed by signed certifications from each Councilmember confirming their review of and adherence to the Political Reform Act, Brown Act, and Del Mar’s own code of ethics;
4. A formal response to Councilmember Dan Quirk’s refusal to attend the June 2, 2025, closed session, which blocked quorum and prevented the Council from receiving legal counsel – an abandonment of duty. This is not an isolated occurrence—Councilmember Quirk has been previously censured by this Council on multiple occasions for violations of decorum and disregard for institutional norms. This pattern of behavior must not be ignored.
June 16, 2025 Item 10
2 5. A step-by-step communication plan for proactive disclosure of this matter and the City’s corrective actions to residents, partner agencies, and relevant stakeholders. It is critical that we get ahead of this issue to maintain confidence and avoid surprises that may further erode public trust.
These steps are not only necessary—they are prudent, non-partisan, and designed to minimize institutional risk. I am confident that the City Attorney’s office has either already recommended, or should be insisting upon, the adoption of these or similar measures as foundational to the City’s legal and ethical standing.
The path forward must be guided not by political calculation, but by our shared obligation to protect the credibility of this Council and the legitimacy of its actions.
Finally, should this matter be formally referred for investigation, I trust that Mayor Gaasterland will recognize the seriousness of the moment and voluntarily step aside from her mayoral responsibilities during the pendency of that review. Such a step would not be an admission of wrongdoing, but rather an act of service—placing the City’s stability above personal position. I believe she understands this, and I hope she will act in that spirit.
This is not a moment for delay, denial, or silence. It is a moment for clarity, for courage, and for responsible action.
The people of Del Mar are watching, and they deserve nothing less.
Tate Scott
Del Mar, CA
June 16, 2025 Item 10
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Angelina Neglia <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2025 8:48 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Ashley Jones
Subject: Red Dot Item 10 - Conflict of Interest discussion Terry Gaasterland Attachments: Red Dot Item 10 Council mtg june 2025.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 to you all,
Please can you submit my letter for Item 10 regarding Gaasterland conflict of interest discussion.
Thanks,
Angie
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”
June 16, 2025 Item 10
Angelina Neglia
1955 Seaview Avenue
Del Mar, CA. 92014
June 15th, 2025
Red Dot Agenda Item 10 – Poten2al Conflict of Interest Involving Mayor Gaasterland
Dear Honorable Del Mar City Council Members;
It is with a sad heart I am wri?ng this leAer to you all, as I hear about the alleged conflict of interest allega?ons and escala?on of these allega?ons regarding Mayor Terry Gaasterland and her STR. I am further concerned with the other council members referral of this issue to the oversight bodies – including the Fair Poli?cal Prac?ces Commission, the District AAorney’s Poli?cal Integrity Unit, the State AAorney General, and the San Diego County Grand Jury.
The current version of Del Mar’s proposed ordinance reads:
“Short-Term Rental (STR) means the rental of a dwelling unit, or any por?on thereof, for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purposes, for not more than thirty (30) consecu?ve calendar days.”
Short term rentals should not include rentals that last an en?re month whether the month is 30 or 31 days. Rentals for at least a month do not have the everyfew-days, or weekly or bi-weekly move-ins and outs that are the annoying feature of short-term rentals, and should not be treated as such. What happens in leap years for the month of February when it has 28 days? Is that considered a month? We all know our City had many serious discussions, mee?ngs and received various community input regarding what cons?tutes a short-term rental versus a longterm rental. As you can see from the suppor?ng documenta?on, below, Terry Gaasterland in good faith tried to understand the rules, and if there was a conflict of interest.
June 16, 2025 Item 10
In summary, I like the fact that the City Council members are trying to make sure none of your members have any conflict of interest. I feel the evidence shows Terry Gaasterland made every effort to understand if she had a conflict of interest, and supply informa?on requested. She also asked the appropriate authori?es and aAorneys for their guidance and input. I would ask the City Council to aAempt to work out this issue in private. Our City Council is buried with massive issues, such as being destroyed by possible SANDAG rail alignments. With only 4 Council Members I appreciate you all have different opinions, and that you all work long hours dedicated to helping Del Mar. Please don’t destroy our City Council by pursuing this issue, and waste further ?me and money.
Kind Regards,
Angelina Neglia
June 16, 2025 Item 10
Short Term Rental Ordinance Timeline
July 9, 2023 – City Council Mee?ng Item 9
• First Council discussion toward a future STR Ordinance - No Conflict on TG par?cipa?on.
• Council reviewed data and informa?on about STRs in other ci?es and a consultant’s study of STRs offered in Del Mar.
July 24, 2023 – City Council Mee?ng Item 10
• Council adopted Guiding Principles for an STR ordinance - No Conflict on TG par?cipa?on.
October 2, 2023 – City Council Mee?ng Item 14
• Council reviewed STR regula?ons from other ci?es and directed staff to prepare a drab regulatory framework for an STR ordinance that would align with Counciladopted STR Guiding Principles - No Conflict on TG par?cipa?on.
January 22, 2024 – City Council Mee?ng Item 7
• Council reviewed the drab regulatory framework and provided policy direc?on for changes - No Conflict on TG par?cipa?on.
May 20, 2024 – City Council Mee?ng Items 11 and 12
• Council reviewed the revised drab regulatory framework and provided policy direc?on to staff to prepare a drab STR ordinance - No Conflict on TG par?cipa?on.
• Council provided policy direc?on to staff to prepare amendments to require TOT for STRs - No Conflict on TG par?cipa?on.
August 13, 2024 – Planning Commission Mee?ng Item 5
• PC considered drab STR ordinance.
• Drab ordinance included a defini?on of STR as 30 days or less to align with Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) code.
• Residents expressed concern in public comments that monthly rentals for February or months with 30 days would be short term rentals. They also observed that several Del Mar condo complex covenants require rentals to be 30 days or more, i.e., they allow rentals for 30 days but no less. • Solu?on was iden?fied: Create an exemp?on for “monthly rentals”.
August 22, 2024 – Mee?ng to discuss defini?on of “monthly rentals” and exemp?ons
June 16, 2025 Item 10
(Mayor, City AAorneys, City Manager, Planning Staff, Gaasterland) • Depending on defini?on of length of STR rental and a new defini?on of “monthly rentals”,
TG noted for the first .me a possible conflict. • TG informed the City Manager and City AAorney, TG had concerns that because TG had rented her second unit for periods of 30 days, there may be a conflict since the drab defini?on of STR included 30-day rentals. The City AAorney agreed that there may be a conflict.
• TG le8 the mee.ng.
August 23, 2024 – TG sought FPPC advice
• TG immediately submiAed an email to the FPPC describing the situa?on. • TG followed up with a telephone call to the FPPC and was told by a paralegal that TG had no conflict. Therefore, TG con?nued to par?cipate in the STR Ordinance discussion at the City Council mee?ngs - No Conflict on TG par?cipa?on.
September 9 and 23, 2024 – City Council Mee?ngs
• TG voted against approval of the STR ordinance, vo?ng NO. • The ordinance passed 4-1 in the first and second readings.
December 31, 2024 – TG registered two units on the Del Mar STR registry to preserve the op?on to rent for any 30-day period
• At this future date two months aber the approval of the STR Ordinance and based on the changed defini?on of what cons?tuted a STR – 30 days or less – and without a defini?on of “monthly rental” that exempted all rentals for 30 days, TG decided to register her two units as STR rental units.
o TG’s condominium covenants allow rentals for 30 days but not less than 30 days.
o The adopted defini?on of “short term rental” is rentals for 30 days or less. o The adopted defini?on of “monthly rentals” exempts as not “short term rentals,” rentals from the beginning to the end of any month or rentals that start on a date in one month and end on the prior date in the next month. o Thus, rentals for 30 days that start in a month with 31 days are not exempt.
May 5, 2025 – City sent No?fica?on LeAer to TG – STR registra?on was denied by the city.
• Aber review by the City Staff, staff determined that TG had not provided evidence that she rented her units as short term rentals prior to the September 23, 2025, City Council vote on the STR ordinance, and therefore denied approval.
June 16, 2025 Item 10
The City gave one month to provide alterna?ve documenta?on. TG had no alterna?ve documenta?on to submit and submiAed none.
June 2, 2025 – City Council Closed Session Mee?ng
• Two council members met with the City AAorney to discuss liability to the city if TG were found (by another agency) to be conflicted on par?cipa?on in the STR ordinance.
• TG recused.
June 4, 2025 – Request to FPPC for formal opinion
• City AAorney briefed TG on liability and risk to the city if TG were found as conflicted on par?cipa?on in the STR ordinance.
• TG wrote to the FPPC and requested a wriAen opinion on conflict based on TG’s August 23 request for advice and a copy of her condo associa?on covenants. • Note: The STR ordinance is currently under review by the Coastal Commission; a final vote by the Council on the ordinance will be in the future.
June 5, 2025 – Units removed from STR registry aber denial of approval on May 5, 2025
• TG’s units were removed from the STR registry - TG NO LONGER (if ever) CONFLICTED. This means TG was not conflicted at the ?me she voted on the new STR Ordinance.
June 16, 2025 – Next Council Mee?ng
• Two council members (Mar?nez and Spelich) have placed an item on the Council Open
Session agenda. Their requested ac?on:
Refer this maAer and all relevant documents in the City’s possession to the Fair Poli?cal Prac?ces Commission (FPPC), San Diego County District AAorney Poli?cal Integrity Unit, California AAorney General, and San Diego County Grand Jury for third-party review and ac?on as appropriate.
2026 – Future Council Mee?ng
• The Coastal Commission is reviewing the STR ordinance as an amendment to the city’s cer?fied Local Coastal Program (LCP).
• The City Council will vote to accept the Coastal Commission’s approval of the LCP and any Coastal Commission amendments to the ordinance.
June 16, 2025 Item 10
See Below, Terry Gaasterland’s Request for Advice to FPPC, on August 23, 2024 In good faith Terry Gaasterland tried to understand if she had a conflict of interest regarding her STR.
Gaasterland Request for Advice to FPPC on August 23, 2024:
Dear FPPC,
I am writing to request guidance on whether I am conflicted if I participate in September public hearings on a new STR ordinance. I am Del Mar Deputy Mayor Terry Gaasterland and own two adjacent homes in Del Mar.
Our City is developing Short Term Rental ordinances and also undertaking a ballot measure to modify our TOT ordinance so that TOT can be collected on short term rentals of residential units.
I own two semi-detached townhomes in my five-unit HOA. When our family grew to include parents that needed to live with us for several months of the year, we had the good fortune to purchase the adjacent townhouse unit to increase our living space.
Recently, we started renting our adjacent unit in July/August and November. The stays must be of duration at least 30 days because our HOA CC&Rs disallow rentals of duration "less than 30 days".
Now that we are nearing the end of developing an STR ordinance and modifying the TOT ordinance, it became clear to me this week on Tuesday August 20, 2024, that a rental of duration 30 days is considered a transient (short term) rental, subject to TOT. Right now, TOT is limited to lodging with at least 3 units. But if a voter ballot measure passes on November 5, TOT will apply to short term rental of houses and condos, including rentals of duration 30 days.
I realized this because of public comments at the Planning Commission meeting that day in which others in Del Mar who own second units in the City and sometimes rent them for durations of 30 days expressed concern that the TOT ordinance change to alter the definition of "hotel" would invoke the need for them to collect TOT for five months of the year if they had a one-month rental for that month (April, June, September, November, and February).
Going forward, I will have three choices for my own second unit:
(1) be sure to rent for periods of 31 days or longer so that the rental event is not a short term rental; or
(2) acquire a short-term rental permit just in case a future 30-day rental is the best option for a particular renter; or
(3) return to using both units as our living space.
Question:
Given the situation and choices described above, am I conflicted for any of the following reasons?
a. because I have done 30-day rentals in the past, which are considered transient? b. because I may wish to do 30-day rentals in the future and thus would then need an STR permit from the city?
June 16, 2025 Item 10
I would note "b" applies to every home in the city. Many Del Mar HOAs prohibit rentals of duration "less than 30 days", and single-family homes have no restrictions at all. So perhaps the "public generally" rule applies?
I would also note that "a" may be considered irrelevant because there is currently no STR ordinance in Del Mar to define short term rentals of private homes and the current TOT ordinance applies only to lodging that has 3 or more units. Thus, past 30-day rentals were allowed by the current code and would continue to be allowed going forward as long as an STR permit is obtained.
Monday August 26th will be the next Council discussion in a regular meeting to discuss what is exempt from TOT in an exemption clause that will be proposed by the City Attorney for the STR ordinance. Last Tuesday, the Planning Commission recommended that "monthly rentals" be exempt; the challenge is how to define "monthly" while still remaining consistent with the TOT ordinance's definition that "transient" rentals are "30 days or less".
Based on guidance from Council on Monday, the STR ordinance will be finalized and brought to first and second reading public hearings in September.
Here is a simplified version of the question:
Am I conflicted or am I not on the subject of developing Del Mar's short term rental ordinance due to owning a property that may be rented on a monthly basis from time to time? My HOA does not allow rental of units for less than 30 days, but does allow a 30-day rental, which is defined as "transient" and "short term" in the draft ordinance.
Please advise.
Thank you.
FPPC follow-up question:
Good afternoon Mr. Gaasterland,
Are you aware of the amount of costs the new ordinance will potentially cause you to incur? Gaasterland response:
A future cost would be an annual Short Term Rental permit fee. STR permit fees have not been discussed or established in Del Mar. That will be a future action of the City Council.
Annual STR permit fees for the other four small cities in San Diego County are the following:
$253 = new, Solana Beach
$142 = renewal, Solana Beach
$150 = new or renewal, Imperial Beach
$425 = new or renewal, Encinitas
$425 = new or renewal, Coronado
Every short-term rental would also be obligated to collect TOT, which in Del Mar is 13%. The TOT is paid by the renter as an additional cost to rent. Transient Occupancy Tax goes to the city.
No other associated costs that I know of.
Thank you.
June 16, 2025 Item 10
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 8:24 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Dan Quirk; 'Tracy Martinez'; John Spelich; Ashley Jones Subject: Red dot, Item 10, 6.16.2025 City Council meeting Attachments: City Council 6.16.25.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.
Shirli Fabbri Weiss
Retired Partner
M +1 858 449 4850
[email protected]
DLA Piper LLP (US)
June 16, 2025 Item 10
1 Shirli Fabbri Weiss
551 Stratford Court
Del Mar, Ca. 92014
June 16, 2025
Dear Distinguished City Council Members:
Re: Opposition to recommendation in Item 10, June 16, 2025 Del Mar City Council meeting
I am a long-time resident of Del Mar and have practiced law in California for over 40 years.
For the reasons set forth below, I am strongly opposed to the recommendation of item 10:
“REQUESTED ACTIONS/RECOMMENDATION: Refer this [alleged failure to adequately disclose ownership of rental units] and all relevant documents in the City’s possession to the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), San Diego County District Attorney Political Integrity Unit, California Attorney General, and San Diego County Grand Jury for third-party review and action as appropriate.”
1. In today’s environment, the referral by the City Council of the Mayor or any council member to the District Attorney, the California Attorney General or the San Diego County Grand Jury is tantamount to an accusation of criminal wrongdoing by the City. That is how it will be assessed by the public (and already has, judging from one public comment). Tuesday’s headline might read: “City Council invites Grand Jury Investigation of Mayor.” Instead, the City Council should proceed most cautiously with due regard for Ms. Gaasterland’s due process rights. The facts do not warrant this drastic step by the City Council. The only thing that is warranted at this point is a request by the City (along with Ms. Gaasterland who has already made the request) to the FPPC to evaluate the matter with Ms. Gaasterland’s full cooperation and give the City its opinion. The City can and should then decide next steps in a careful, measured fashion as required by the circumstances. The adoption of the approach in the recommendation is unwarranted and against the City’s interests.
2. A referral to criminal authorities causes an irreparable crater in someone’s life, regardless of the ultimate outcome. We have seen this time and time again. Hence, the time for caution is at the beginning. This is not a censure being considered by the City . It is a criminal referral by the City that Ms. Gaasterland has faithfully served for many years. Note, there is no responsibility on the part of the City Council to make a criminal referral. A “wash our hands” hand-off to a “kitchen June 16, 2025 Item 10
2 sink” of criminal investigatory authorities is inappropriate here. For the City Council to refer this matter to criminal authorities at this early juncture in light of its lack of investigation by an appropriate, disinterested person or firm is reckless and is itself conduct that will expose the City to litigation.
We can’t ask people to serve on the City Council working well into the night on difficult City matters and then stack the deck against them when concerning issues arise that involve them. I understand Ms. Gaasterland is required to recuse herself from discussion, can put no questions to her accusers at the meeting and, I understand, she only gets the usual public comment of three minutes to defend herself against this “request” and “recommendation.” She has now essentially been told her colleagues will refer her to law enforcement and most attorneys would advise her to say nothing until she can actually get a fair hearing (not this one). But by saying nothing she increases her chances of the referral. This is a patently and fundamentally unfair process. We will never get people to serve on the City Council if we follow this fundamentally unfair process.
3. As to the controversy itself, the record does not indicate any willful misconduct, but rather the opposite (see red dot of Angelina Neglia). First I should note I participated quite a lot in the discussions on the STR ordinance, (having a rental property myself that I rent for periods of 1 to 6 months). The City Attorney worked hard on the ordinance and it was discussed by the public ad infinitum. In the end, a rental for a month that is 30 days falls both within the definition of STR and is then exempted from the definition of STR. Yes, it remains confusing. The Ordinance had a checkered history and is easily misinterpreted. My point is, at any point in time it was difficult for people who had a rental unit and customarily rented it for at least a month to conclude that their financial interest was affected by the proposed ordinance. It is undisputed that Ms Gaasterland did not participate in the August 26, 2024 meeting where the definition of a STR was discussed and it was determined that the rental for a month would be exempted from the ordinance.
It was not intuitively obvious before or certainly after that, that people who rented for a month or more would be financially affected by the Ordinance.
4. The record does not support a criminal referral. The City’s summary timeline admits that Ms. Gaasterland affirmatively flagged a concern and told people that she might be conflicted because she and her husband rented a unit on a monthly basis before the discussion of the STR definition. With whom did she raise this? The City Attorney? The other members of the City Council? She then recused herself from both the open and closed discussion on August 26, 2024 where the definition of STR’s which might affect her. This is hardly the conduct of a person attempting to conceal a conflict. It shows the absence of willful intent to violate the law.
June 16, 2025 Item 10
3 Why did the City Attorney or the then Mayor not call for her recusal at the following meeting if it was clear to them that she had a conflict? Should they be investigated? At that point both the City Council and the City Attorney had to know Ms.
Gaasterland owned a rental because she told them. Was lack of a public announcement just an unfortunate oversight? Ms. Gaasterland participated at the September 9, 2024 meeting after it was determined that monthly rentals would not be STRs. She voted with the majority who declined her proposed changes. In December, 2024, Ms. Gaasterland registered as having a STR. But the rental agreement she proffered as her standard agreement is an agreement for an exempt long-term rental ( the month of February). Perhaps she registered out of an abundance of caution for the future or perhaps she misread the ordinance. In any event, her conduct simply does not signal an intent to violate the law and does not warrant a referral to criminal authorities. It will harm the City at a time that we most need to maintain credibility.
5. The majority of two council members should make this decision. Should the City Council proceed with this ill-advised recommendation, the decision should at least be unanimous. I know the rules call for only two to decide where there are four members.
I’ll note that when the City Council sought advice about a special election when Dwight Worden resigned, the City Attorney said that there were no adverse consequences to not filling the seat. With the benefit of hindsight, that was clearly wrong. The idea that we have created a situation where the vote of two council members (who do not at this point appear to be unbiased on this subject) can effectively and entirely disable a third elected official with no due process is a terrible adverse consequence of not filling the seat.
WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE ORDINANCE IF THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY BUT NOT THE PUBLIC.
The Ordinance is not yet effective because the Coastal Commission has not passed on it and is not expected to do so until late 2025, and even then it might not be effective if the Commission has issues with it. Rather than hand off an investigation to criminal authorities, which will result in the shut-down of communication and disable our Mayor, the City Council should do its best to try to determine if an undisclosed conflict even existed and if so, if it has a probability of invalidating the ordinance. If the City Council does so determine, it should reopen the process to the public and decide whether to place the ordinance back on a ballot in 2026. If it’s a problem, let’s fix it. In this instance, it is clear there was not willful misconduct, the consideration should be at most a censure for June 16, 2025 Item 10
4 negligence, if that, not the effective removal of our Mayor at a time when we need her and all of you the most.
Please do not accept the request/recommendation of Item 10.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirli Weiss
June 16, 2025 Item 10
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Michael Deftos <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 9:35 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Item 10 City Council Meeting 6/16.
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.
Del Mar City Council,
I oppose Item 10 on its merits. The 30-day/1-month rental term issue was confusing and brought up late in the process. Mayor Gaasterland made a good-faith effort to seek guidance on any conflict issues that arose from the nuances. Also, two City Councilors should not pass an item they sponsor with only their votes. That would not be possible if the City had a five-member City Council, which it is supposed to have but unfortunately does not.
Michael Deftos
June 16, 2025 Item 10
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Hershell Price <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 11:30 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: RED DOT LETTER Item #10
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Below is my red dot letter on Item 10:
This hearing is a waste of time and money. It seems that it is no more than an attempt to discredit and embarrass Terry during her term as mayor. It may also cause her good name to be defamed by this action.
This issue is being brought forward to the council solely by Deputy Mayor Tracy Martinez and Council Member John Spelich, not the City of Del Mar.
Terry voted NO, against the STR Ordinance. The vote was 4 in favor and 1 against, which was Terry’s NO vote. The vote would have have passed with or without her vote.
Terry was not in the business of renting her two units on a short-term basis.
Almost three months after the approval of the STR Ordinance, Terry and her husband decided to register their two units for a STR permit. Their decision to do so was based on the council decision to define a short-term rental as a rental of 30 days or less, thereby causing their past rentals to be classified as STR’s.
However, the City rejected their registry application because there was not enough evidence provided for approval. They then decided not to appeal the City’s decision. Because of that, any possibility of a conflict was negated and became moot.
June 16, 2025 Item 10
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Laura Schaefer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 11:59 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Item #10 - Referral of Gaasternland
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 this red dot for item #10 regarding referral of Gaasterland to the District Attorney Political Integrity Unit, Attorney General and Grand Jury.
Dear Honorable Council Members:
I am writing to express my strong opposition to item 10, which recommends referral of a potential "conflict of interest" concerning Mayor Gaasterland to the Fair Political Practices commission, the San Diego District Attorney's Office, the Attorney General and the Grand Jury.
This weekend I reviewed the city council agenda and was shocked to learn that the City is recommending that Mayor Gaasterland be referred to a number of agencies that prosecute public officials for political corruption crimes committed in the performance of their official duties. I am certain that many people reading the agenda had the same reaction to this official requested referral: she must have committed a crime.
As a practicing criminal defense attorney for over 30 years in this county, I have seen first hand the irreparable damage that is caused to the lives of individuals who have suffered an official and unfounded suggestion that a criminal investigation or prosecution of that individual is warranted. Therefore, my initial assumption was that there must be solid credible evidence that would establish that Mayor Gaasterland had perhaps committed a crime. Conflict of interest June 16, 2025 Item 10
2 laws are complex, and that is why the Fair Political Practices Commission is able and ready to issue advisory opinions to guide public officials and provide advice to the public. I assumed that the City had obtained such an advisory opinion motivating it to place this explosive allegation on the official City agenda recommending her referral to prosecutors.
After reviewing the staff report, I learned that not only did the City not have credible evidence that Mayor Gaasterland committed a crime, but that the City had declined to even conduct an independent investigation before deciding to brand her with the Scarlet Letter of a public referral to the San Diego District Attorney's specialized unit for the investigation and prosecution of corruption by political officials.
To make matters worse, the City excuses its failure to conduct any independent investigation by blaming the accused, Ms. Gaasterland herself, for not defending herself during a closed meeting to discuss what other council members view as potential criminal conduct. The City also unfairly blames Council Member Quirk for not going along with this, and seeks his censure for refusing to participate in this absurd rush to judgment. With Gaasterland recused, and Quirk outnumbered by two, what would be the point? The staff report declares that this official referral to criminal prosecuting agencies is for the purpose of "transparency" because the city council originally intended to discuss this in a closed meeting, reserved for privileged matters. But then the City in the spirit of "transparency" publicly announces the privileged and confidential matter. Truly, the council has gone down the proverbial rabbit hole.
The City admits that the actions of individual council members do not create liability for the City, and Gaasterland's vote did not affect the outcome, a crucial issue for the conflict of interest analysis, and the issue of whether the STR would be invalidated by her vote.
I agree with the points raised by Ms. Weiss in her red dot communication, but my suggestion is that you not only decline to June 16, 2025 Item 10
3 refer this to prosecuting agencies, but you withdraw this item from the agenda to minimize any further harm to Ms. Gaasterland's reputation, and head off any potential liability in that regard.
Respectfully submitted,
Laura Schaefer
158 6th St
Del Mar CA
NOTICE: This E-Mail transmission (and/or the documents accompanying it) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine or other applicable privileges or confidentiality laws or regulations. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message or any of the information contained in this message to anyone.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.
June 16, 2025 Item 10
June 16, 2025 Item 10
June 16, 2025 Item 10
June 16, 2025 Item 10
June 16, 2025 Item 10
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Larry D. Brooks <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2025 10:23 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Terry TG. Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; JOHN SPELICH; Dan Quirk Subject: RED DOT - June 16 Council Meeting - Agenda Item 12 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.
Greetings, Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and
Councilmembers:
The Del Mar Historical Society requests your positive vote on the re-inclusion of the Alvarado House in the Shores Park planning process.
Alvarado House was included in the very early plans for the park, but was removed when Mike Jobes, Miller-Hull
Architects, responded to our request to include Alvarado House in the new Civic Center. Mike and I walked the site and concluded that the SW corner was the best
site. Miller-Hull included sewer, water, and electrical utilities in the final plans, and we assume those utilities are capped off and buried in accordance with the Record
Documents dated August 26, 2016. With that site now
sequestered by the Affordable Housing issue, we are
making this request.
DMHS remains the only historical society in San Diego
county without a home.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration,
June 16, 2025 Item 12
2 Larry Brooks
President, DMHS
June 16, 2025 Item 12
1 Robert Silva
From: Del Mar Foundation <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 11:58 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Joe Sullivan; Laura DeMarco; Judd Halenza; Larry Brooks; Tom Neuman Subject: Red Dot for Item #12 - Shores Park - June 16 Council meeting Attachments: Red Dot-Shores Master Planning-DMF-Friends-DMCC-DMHS.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.
Dear Sarah,
I am attaching a Red Dot for Monday's Council meeting, Agenda Item #12, Shores Park Master Planning, from four nonprofit organizations: Del Mar Foundation, Friends of Del Mar Parks, Del Mar Community Connections, and Del Mar Historical Society.
Thanks,
Tom
Thomas Neuman, MD
President
Del Mar Foundation
[email protected]
858-635-1363
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
June 16, 2025 Item 12
Red Dot
for you – –
• - •
• •
o
o
June 16, 2025 Item 12
o - - - o
o
o
• • Ar
June 16, 2025 Item 12
June 13, 2025
TO: Del Mar City Council
FROM: Laura DeMarco
Joe Sullivan
Friends of Del Mar Parks
SUBJECT: Correction to Staff Report — June 16 Council Agenda, Item 12 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
We commend the Council for restarting the planning process for Shores Park.
We would like to respectfully correct a statement in the staff report for Item 12 on your June 16 agenda. The report states,
“The 5.3-acre Del Mar Shores property, located west of Camino del Mar between 9th Street and Stratford Court, was purchased by the City of Del Mar in 2008. Over half of the approximately $5.4 million cost was funded by community donations.”
In fact, we believe the City purchased the 5.3-acre property from the Del Mar Union School District for $8.5 million. The purchase was funded as follows:
• $2.5 million in private donations raised by Friends of Del Mar Parks • $3 million in pre-paid rent from The Winston School
• $3 million borrowed by the City to complete the transaction That $3 million in City debt was repaid shortly thereafter using proceeds from the sale of the City’s surplus reservoir property on Balboa Avenue. At the time, the sale was justified under the principle of “open space for open space.”
While this clarification may not affect any decisions before you at this meeting, we believe it is important to have an accurate public record.
Respectfully submitted,
June 16, 2025 Item 12
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Kim Kanetis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 9:29 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red dot - Item #12 Shores Park Redevelopment
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and Members of Del Mar City Council,
The Winston School is pleased that the Shores Park Master Plan redevelopment process is under consideration to resume. With the lease terms between the City and School resolved, we look forward to being a positive, active participant in the planning process.
The Winston School's remodel plans and $5.5M Capital Campaign are now underway. With the School's redevelopment scheduled to begin Summer 2026 and the Shores Park renewed, the former Del Mar Shores School site will become a revitalized and useful community asset we can all be proud of.
Kim Kanetis
--
Kim Kanetis
Executive Director
[email protected]
The Winston School
215 Ninth Street, Del Mar, CA 92014
Phone (858) 259-8155
Fax (858) 259-8356
https://www.thewinstonschool.org/
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. IN ADDITION, this communication may contain material protected by HIPAA and other privacy laws (45 CFR, Parts 160 & 164;42 CFR Part 2). If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering this email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete the email from your computer.
June 16, 2025 Item 12
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Ashley Jones
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 9:40 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: FW: Del Mar Shores Park Red Dot - Item 12
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
From: T. Pat Stubbs <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 9:23 AM
To: John Spelich <[email protected]>; Terry TG. Gaasterland <[email protected]>; Dan Quirk <[email protected]>; Tracy Martinez <[email protected]> Cc: Ashley Jones <[email protected]>; Joe Sullivan <[email protected]> Subject: Del Mar Shores Park
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 city council,
I’m writing in strong support of the Del Mar Shores Park planning process, particularly the plan to renovate the ballpark.
Unfortunately, I won’t be able to attend the upcoming meeting as I will be in Pennsylvania watching my sons, Garrett and Cameron, continue their baseball journeys — a journey that began right here at Shores Park.
Del Mar Shores is more than a park to my family — it’s where my boys first learned to play the game they love. From early practices on those fields to success at the high school, collegiate, and now professional levels, the foundation was laid at Shores. This park has had a lasting impact on their lives, and I know it can do the same for many more young athletes in our community.
Please move forward with the planning and improvement process. It’s an investment in the future — not just of a park, but of our kids and our community.
Respectfully submitted,
T. Pat Stubbs
1528 Forest Way
Del Mar, CA 92014
Sent from my iPhone
June 16, 2025 Item 12
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Tom Sohn <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 11:19 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot - Item 12
Attachments: Red Dot June 16 - Item 12.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.
Attached is a red dot letter pertaining to Item 12 on today's agenda.
Thanks,
Tom Sohn
264 26th St
June 16, 2025 Item 12
Tom Sohn, Former Vice Chair, Shores Advisory Committee
Red Dot for June 16, 2025 City Council Meeting
RE: Agenda Item #12 – Reinitiating the Shores Park Master Planning Process June 16, 2025
Dear Council,
I was a member & Vice Chair of the Shores Advisory Committee from its inception in April 2014 to its disbanding in December 2021. The purpose of our Committee was not to design the park or to provide our individual assessment of what should/shouldn’t be included in the park. The purpose of our committee was to oversee the master planning process and to ensure that community input was received and ultimately reflected in the park’s design, regardless of our personal preferences.
Along those lines, we obtained extensive community input through multiple pop-up tents at community events (2015), interest group interviews (2015), a survey (early 2015) a “Plan Your Park” event at the Shores (May 2015), a workshop at the Winston School (October 2015) and presentations at the Committee meetings and Council meetings where the community provided additional input and feedback on various designs presented by the Schmidt Group throughout 2016-2018.
I would encourage the Council to direct staff to resume the work in completing a master plan for Shores Park that can be implemented in stages, as funding is available.
I would also encourage the Council to utilize the extensive input over multiple years and direct the Parks & Recreation Committee to form a subcommittee with the sole purpose of mirroring the directive given to the Shores Advisory Committee; ensuring that the previously obtained community input is the basis for any design or re-design of the Shores Park.
Thank you for your time!
Tom Sohn
June 16, 2025 Item 12