Agenda, regular meeting, first session — Del Mar City Council, September 22, 2025 (part 1 of 4)

Table of Contents
9-22-2025 Regular Meeting Agenda
Item 1-Minutes
Item 2 - 9.22.25 List of Demands Packet
Item 4 - 2025 Building Code Update - 2nd Reading
Item 5 - 2025 Fire Code Update - 2nd Reading
Item 6 - EP25-068 Approval Resolution
Item 7 - Seaside Ridge Appeal Initial Consideration
Item 8 - JDB Paving and Striping MBI TO
Item 9 - SDG&E Cost Agreement for Crest Canyon (UUD X1A) Item 10- UP Financing Update - Loan Amount
Item 11 - City Notice Regarding Fire COOP
2 8
16 32
54 75
98 283
295
307
320
Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda
City of Del Mar, Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California 92014
And via teleconference
8967 W Airport Dr, Spokane, WA
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us Civility Works: The Del Mar Code of Civil Discourse: Together we will promote inclusion; listen to understand; show respect; be clear and fair; and focus on the issue.

Regular Meeting
Monday, September 22, 2025 at 4:30 PM
Public Participation/Comment: Members of the public can participate in City Council meetings in-person or via written comment (Red Dot). Anyone may address the City Council for up to three minutes, at the Mayor’s discretion, on items on the agenda.

Members of the public wishing to speak on items not on the agenda may do so under Public Oral Communications. Agenda items may be addressed in any order at the discretion of the Mayor. When addressing the Council, please state your name for the record. Any electronic presentations must be received before 9 a.m. on the date of the Council meeting. No PowerPoint presentations can be loaded during the meeting.

In-Person Participation: Please submit a completed “Speaker Slip”, including the item number you wish to speak on, to the City Clerk prior to the Mayor announcing the agenda item. The forms are located near the door at the rear of the Meeting Room. When called to speak, please approach the podium and state your name for the record.

Written Comments: Members of the public can participate in the meeting by submitting a written red dot comment via email to [email protected]. The deadline to submit written comments is 12 p.m. on the day of the meeting and the subject line of your email should clearly state the agenda item you are commenting on.

Viewing the Meeting and Access to Agenda Materials: Members of the public can watch the meeting live on the City’s website at: http://delmar.12milesout.com/Video/Live and on Cable TV Spectrum Ch. 24, AT&T Ch. 99 starting at 4:30 PM. Agenda materials and communications from the public on agenda items, “Red Dots”, are available on the City’s website:
http://www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter and a hard copy of the agenda materials are available at Del Mar City Hall and the Del Mar Library during their business hours.

Assistance for Persons with Disabilities: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Administrative Services Department at 1050 Camino del Mar or by calling (858) 755-9313.

Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Terry Gaasterland
Mayor
Tracy Martinez
Deputy Mayor
Dan Quirk
Council Member
John W. Spelich
Council Member
Ashley Jones
City Manager
Leslie E. Devaney
City Attorney
Sarah Krietor
Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting September 22, 2025 Agenda Page 2
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
II. CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Each person wishing to speak before the City Council on any matter not on the agenda shall submit a “Speaker Slip” to the City Clerk when Public Oral Communication is announced. Each speaker will have up to three (3) minutes to speak at the discretion of the Mayor and may be asked clarifying questions. Information received during Public Oral Communication may be received, placed on a future agenda, or referred to the City Manager by the City Council. State law generally precludes the City Council from discussing or acting upon any topic presented during oral communications that is not described on the posted agenda.

Note: there is a time limit of 30 minutes for this section of public communications and each speaker will be heard in the order of the submission of their speaker slip. Speakers who have turned in a speaker slip prior to the time oral communications was called on the agenda, but were not heard during the initial time period shall be called to speak at the end of the agenda.

V. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
VI. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the City Council or the public so requests, in which event, the item will be pulled from the Consent Calendar and considered separately after the motion to approve the Consent Calendar. If you wish to remove an item from the Consent Calendar, please submit a “Speaker Slip” to the City Clerk.

1. Approval of Minutes: September 8, 2025 Regular and Special Meeting Recommended Action: Approve Minutes.

Reference: Clerk’s Minutes Book

2. Ratification of List of Demands dated September 22, 2025 Recommended Action: Ratify the List of Demands.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 201-3
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting September 22, 2025 Agenda Page 3
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us

3. Waiver of Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
Recommended Action: Waive Reading of Ordinances.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-4

4. Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance to Adopt the 2025 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments within Chapters 23.12 and

23.70 of the Del Mar Municipal Code
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance (Attachment A) amending Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter

23.12 to adopt the 2025 Edition of the California Building Standards Code, adopt the California Wildland-Urban Interface Code, amend Chapters 23.12 and 23.70 to reflect local amendments to the 2025 California Building Standards Code, and continue to apply various locally adopted amendments thereto as necessary to reflect Del Mar’s unique characteristics and approach to design and development review.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-4, 401-9

5. Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance to Adopt the 2025 California Fire Code, 2025 California Wildland Urban Interface Code, and Local Amendments
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance (Attachment A) amending Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter

10.04 to adopt the 2025 Edition of the California Fire Code, adopt the 2025 Edition of the California Wildland-Urban Interface Code (CWUIC), amend Chapter 10.04 to reflect a local amendment to the 2025 California Fire Code, and continue to apply various locally adopted amendments thereto as necessary to reflect the Del Mar Fire Department’s approach to fire prevention and protection.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 401-4, 401-9

6. Resolution to Approve Encroachment Permit 25-068 to Retain Existing Unpermitted Retaining Walls and to Extend an Existing Wall within the Public Right-of-Way at 610 Hoska Drive
Recommended Action: It is requested that the City Council consider adoption of a Resolution (Attachment A) approving a Long-term Major Encroachment Permit (EP) 25-068 to retain existing unpermitted encroachments within the public rightof-way adjacent to 610 Hoska Drive.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 802-1
VIII. COUNCIL MEETING RECESS
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting September 22, 2025 Agenda Page 4
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us IX. CITY COUNCIL OTHER BUSINESS

7. Initial Consideration of Courtesy Appeal Per DMMC 1.12.020 of Planning Director’s Determination- Incomplete Application Status (CDP23-008) Seaside Ridge Housing Development (Applicant: Carol Lazier) Proposed 259 Multi-Unit Residential Development and Density Bonus Request at 929 Border (APNs: 298-241-06, 298-241-07, and 299-030-14) Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning and Community Development Director’s determination that the Lazier development application (CDP23-008) status is incomplete.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 301-12

8. Update Regarding Paving and Traffic Striping Improvements on Jimmy Durante Boulevard and Approval of Task Order with Michael Baker International for Engineering Services for the Jimmy Durante Boulevard Pavements Improvement Project
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive an Update on the Planned Traffic Striping Improvements on Jimmy Durante Boulevard; 2) Approve a $57,300 Task Order with Michael Baker International for Design Services (Attachment B); and 3) Authorize the City Manager to execute the Task Order.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 406-1

9. Consideration of San Diego Gas & Electric Cost Agreement for the Crest Canyon (X1A) Utility Undergrounding District
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the City Council approve the San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Cost Agreement for the Crest Canyon (X1A) Utility Undergrounding District with a cost of $2,776,128 (Attachment A) and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement.

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1001-2

10. Undergrounding Program Financing Update and Determination of Final IBank Loan Amount
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the City Council receive an update from City staff regarding Undergrounding Program Financing and Projects; and provide direction on the final IBank loan amount for Crest Canyon (UUD X1A) and Stratford Court North (UUD 1B).

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 203-3,1001-2
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting September 22, 2025 Agenda Page 5
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us

11. Fire Management Update and Consideration of Notice Regarding Exit from Cooperative Agreement for Fire Management Services
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the City Council authorize the City Manager to provide notice to the cities of Encinitas and Solana Beach that the City of Del Mar may exit the Cooperative Agreement for Fire Management Services between January 1 and March 31, 2026, or a date thereafter as may be agreed upon by the parties (Attachment A).

Reference: Clerk’s File No. 1101-8
X. REGIONAL ORGANIZATION REPORTS
A Councilmember assigned as a liaison to a regional organization may make a written or oral report. State law precludes the Council from commenting on, discussing, or acting on a report unless the item of business within the report is described in the agenda.

A. Clean Energy Alliance JPA (CEA) Board of Directors (Spelich/Gaasterland) B. CSA-17 Ambulance District Advisory Board (Martinez/Quirk) C. Fire Governance Board, Solana Beach/Del Mar/Encinitas (Martinez/Spelich) D. League of California Cities – San Diego Chapter (Gaasterland/Martinez) E. North County Transit District (NCTD) (Martinez/Spelich) F. Regional Solid Waste Association (Spelich/Quirk)
G. San Diego Association of Governments Board (SANDAG)
(Gaasterland/Martinez/Spelich)
H. SANDAG Borders Committee
I. SANDAG Regional Planning Committee
J. SANDAG Shoreline Preservation Working Group
(Spelich/Gaasterland/Martinez)
K. SANDAG LOSSAN Executive Task Force (Gaasterland/Martinez) L. San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Commission/JPA (Worden) M. San Dieguito River Valley Regional Open Space Park JPA –Executive Committee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
N. Other Regional Organization Reports
XI. COUNCIL COMMITTEES/SUBCOMMITTEES/COMMUNITY ORG REPORTS A Councilmember assigned as a liaison to a City Committee, Council Subcommittee OR Community Organization may make a written or oral report. State law precludes the Council from commenting on, discussing, or acting on a report, unless the item of business within the report is described in this agenda.

A. Del Mar Community Connections (Martinez/Spelich)
B. Del Mar Village Association (Gaasterland/Martinez)
C. Finance Committee (Gaasterland/Spelich)
D. Housing Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
E. Human Resources Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
F. Legislative Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Martinez)
G. Measure Q Citizen Oversight Committee (Quirk/Gaasterland) H. Parks and Recreation Committee (Martinez/Quirk)
Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting September 22, 2025 Agenda Page 6
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us I. Del Mar Railroad Subcommittee (Gaasterland/Martinez) J. Lagoon Committee (Gaasterland/Spelich)
K. Planning Process Subcommittee (Includes Sea-Level Rise Adaptation Plan Implementation (Gaasterland/Spelich)
L. Shores Advisory Committee
M. Sustainability Advisory Committee (Martinez/Gaasterland) N. Traffic and Parking Advisory Committee (Quirk/Spelich) O. Undergrounding Program Advisory Committee (Gaasterland/Spelich) P. Other Committee-Subcommittee Reports
XII. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS
The following topics/items are tentatively planned for upcoming agendas. The title, wording, and planned date for these items are subject to change. Final agendas are posted at City Hall 72 hours in advance of the meetings and are also posted on our web site with the accompanying staff report. Please watch our web site:
www.delmar.ca.us for City Council Agendas.

October 6, 2025
Fairgrounds Master Plan Presentation
Agreement with Del Mar Rotary for Community Projects
2026 City Council Meeting Schedule
TSVS Amendments-Ordinance Introduction
Award of Construction Contract for JDB Bluff Stabilization Project Consultant Contract and Scope of Work for Shores Park Master Plan XIII. CERTIFICATION
I, Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk for the City of Del Mar, hereby certify that a copy of this agenda was posted at City Hall on the 17th day of September, 2025 at approximately 7:00 p.m.
___________________________________________ 9/17/2025
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/ Date
City Clerk

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 8, 2025
City of Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar California 92014
The minutes set forth the actions taken by the City Council on the matters stated. Audio/video recordings of the City Council proceedings are retained for a period of ten years, in accordance with the City's Records Retention Schedule. Audio/video recordings, as well as written materials presented to the City Council, including Red Dots (materials provided to the City Council after the agenda has published), are available on the City’s website at www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter or by contacting the Administrative Services Department at (858) 755-9313.

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Terry Gaasterland called the Regular Meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Terry Gaasterland; Deputy Mayor Tracy Martinez; Councilmembers Dan Quirk and John Spelich

CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Attorney Leslie Devaney reported that for the August 25, 2025, Closed Session that there were no reportable actions on any items and there were no absences or recusals. City Attorney Leslie Devaney reported on September 8, 2025, Closed Session there were no reportable actions and all Councilmembers were present for the meeting.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Gaasterland led the Pledge of Allegiance.

PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.

CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
Deputy Mayor Martinez reported on the Del Mar Foundation Picnic to be held on Sunday, September 14, 2025, from 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. at Powerhouse Park.

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Ashley Jones reported on the upcoming Del Mar Recycles event being held on September 13, 2025, from 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. in the lower parking lot of Shores Park; due to a fire in the EDCO trash truck in the Public Works Yard on Friday, September 5, 2025, she reminded the public that any batteries, not just lithium, should be disposed of at hazardous waste facilities in Poway, Vista, and Escondido, or via a scheduled pick-up through CleanEarth; and that San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) LOSSAN Rail Realignment Project geotechnical boring is expected to begin soon and conclude at the end of year.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk Sarah Krietor read the titles of the items included on the Consent Calendar. There were no public speakers for the consent calendar items. 1 September 22, 2025 Item 1
City Council Regular Minutes
September 8, 2025

Page 2 of 7 ends

IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR GAASTERLAND, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SPELICH TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1 THROUGH 5 AND 7 AND 8. (VOTE 4-0) Ayes: Mayor Gaasterland; Deputy Mayor Martinez; Councilmembers Quirk and Spelich; Noes: 0; Recuse: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.

ITEM 1: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: AUGUST 18, 2025 REGULAR MEETING AND AUGUST 25, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING (CLERK’S MINUTES BOOK)
Council approved the minutes, on consent.

ITEM 2: RATIFICATION OF LIST OF DEMANDS, DATED SEPTEMBER 8, 2025 (CLERK’S FILE NO. 201-3)
Council approved the list of demands, on consent.

ITEM 3: WAIVER OF READING OF ORDINANCES ON AGENDA (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-4) Council waived the reading of ordinances, on consent.

ITEM 4: FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CALIFORNIA, INC. FOR PORTABLE RESTROOM SERVICES (CLERK’S FILE NO. 406-1)
Council approved the First Amendment to the Agreement between the City of Del Mar and United Site Services of California, Inc. for Portable Restroom Services, extending the agreement term and amending the service fee schedule; and authorized the City Manager to execute the First Amendment, on consent.

ITEM 5: TREASURER’S INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2025 (CLERK’S FILE NO. 102-2, 209-2)
Council received and filed the informational Treasurer’s Investment Report for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2025, on consent.

PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM 6: ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 25-068 TO RETAIN EXISTING UNPERMITTED

RETAINING WALLS AND TO EXTEND AN EXISTING WALL WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 610 HOSKA DRIVE
APPLICANTS: TIM AND JAYNE HAINES (CLERK’S FILE NO. 802-1) An introduction to the item was provided by City Manager Jones. Mayor Gaasterland announced the hearing procedure. A presentation was provided by Management Analyst Nestor Machado. Planning and Community Development Director Karen Brindley was available to answer questions.

Council disclosures were as follows: Councilmember Quirk reviewed the materials; Deputy Mayor Martinez reviewed the materials and red dots and drove by the property; Councilmember Spelich read the materials and spoke to two people who signed the petition submitted by the applicant; and Mayor 2 September 22, 2025 Item 1
City Council Regular Minutes
September 8, 2025

Page 3 of 7 ends

Gaasterland reviewed the materials including the unredacted petition and materials submitted by the applicants, and rode her bike by the property.

Council questions focused on the location of the property boundaries; pedestrian and emergency vehicle access; intended use of the City’s right-of-way; whether the location of the neighboring properties’ hedges are consistent with the applicant’s permit; whether a future Council could revoke the encroachment permit; whether the wall could be considered a public benefit as a place for the public to sit; whether parking is allowed in front of 909 Highland Avenue; height and length of the proposed wall; and whether the intended boxwoods or plantings referenced by the applicant were part of the application for the encroachment permit.

The applicant Jayne Haines provided a presentation.

Mayor Gaasterland opened the item to public comment and Janet Wilson spoke. Mayor Gaasterland closed the item to public comment.

Council discussion focused on the findings required in the Del Mar Municipal Code Section 23.28.070; whether the proposed encroachment would unreasonably interfere with the intended use of the City right of way or easement and related condition of approval related to limiting vegetation to “grass height” or hardscape as to not interfere with the public right of way/block parking access; importance of the public right-of-way; desire to preserve the Magnolia tree on the site; bases for making findings #2 in that the wall creates area of open space for pedestrians avoiding bikes/traffic, and #5 in that the proposed encroachment will not be detriment to the interests of the general public; width of the street; whether the wall is existing; and proposed length extension of the wall.

IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR GAASTERLAND AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER QUIRK

WITH A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT FROM DEPUTY MAYOR MARTINEZ TO DIRECT STAFF TO

RETURN WITH THE DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE

ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION ON CONSENT AT A FUTURE MEETING WITH A CONDITION OF APPROVAL LIMITING ANY PLANTINGS TO GRASS LEVEL. (VOTE 4-0) Ayes: Mayor Gaasterland; Deputy Mayor Martinez; Councilmembers Quirk and Spelich; Noes: 0; Recuse: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.

Council consensus was to direct staff to complete the required California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis necessary for approval of the encroachment permit.

ITEM 7: INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT THE 2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS WITHIN CHAPTERS 23.12 AND

23.70 OF THE DEL MAR MUNICIPAL CODE (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-4, 401-9) Associate Planner Nicole Marrow and Isam Hasenin, the City’s contract building official with True North Compliance Services, Inc. was available to answer questions. Council questions focused on how these changes will impact residents; pool safety regulations; and number of pools in Del Mar.

Mayor Gaasterland opened the public hearing. There were no public speakers. Mayor Gaasterland closed public oral communications.

The City Council introduce an Ordinance amending Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 23.12 to adopt the 2025 Edition of the California Building Standards Code, adopt the California Wildland-Urban Interface Code, amend Chapters 23.12 and 23.70 to reflect local amendments to the 2025 California 3 September 22, 2025 Item 1
City Council Regular Minutes
September 8, 2025

Page 4 of 7 ends

Building Standards Code, and continue to apply various locally adopted amendments thereto as necessary to reflect Del Mar’s unique characteristics and approach to design and development review, on consent.

ITEM 8: INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT THE 2025 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, 2025 CALIFORNIA WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE CODE, AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS (CLERK’S FILE NO. 401-4, 401-9)
Associate Planner Nicole Morrow and Acting Fire Marshal Jordan Villagomez were available to answer questions. Council questions focused on how these changes will impact residents related to the new fire severity maps and related regulations.

Mayor Gaasterland opened the public hearing. There were no public speakers. Mayor Gaasterland closed public oral communications.

The City Council introduced an Ordinance amending Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 10.04 to adopt the 2025 Edition of the California Fire Code, adopt the 2025 Edition of the California WildlandUrban Interface Code (CWUIC), amend Chapter 10.04 to reflect a local amendment to the 2025 California Fire Code, and continue to apply various locally adopted amendments thereto as necessary to reflect the Del Mar Fire Department’s approach to fire prevention and protection, on consent.

COUNCIL MEETING RECESS:

The City Council took a meeting recess from approximately 6:40 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

CITY COUNCIL OTHER BUSINESS
ITEM 9: REAFFIRMATION OF GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND PREFERRED PARK AMENITIES

FOR THE SHORES PARK MASTER PLAN AND RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE SHORES PARK MASTER PLAN AD-HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CLERK’S FILE NO. 307-8)
An introduction to the item was provided by City Manager Jones. A presentation was provided by Assistant City Manager Clem Brown.

Mayor Gaasterland opened the item to public comment and the following people spoke:
1) Rory Lynch
2) Dan Smiley
3) Michael Simpson
Mayor Gaasterland closed the item to public comment.

Council questions and discussion focused on which amenities were up for discussion; budget and space constraints associated with the project; whether the 9
th Street cobblestone ditch is considered part of
Shores Park or the public right of way; and whether a shared use dog park should be considered.

IT WAS MOVED BY DEPUTY MAYOR MARTINEZ AND SECONDED BY MAYOR GAASTERLAND

TO REAFFIRM THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE SHORES PARK MASTER PLAN AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. (VOTE 4-0)
Ayes: Mayor Gaasterland; Deputy Mayor Martinez; Councilmembers Quirk and Spelich; Noes: 0; Recuse: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.
4 September 22, 2025 Item 1
City Council Regular Minutes
September 8, 2025

Page 5 of 7 ends

IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR GAASTERLAND AND SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR MARTINEZ TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2025-32, ESTABLISHING THE SHORES PARK MASTER PLAN AD-HOC

ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE INPUT, GUIDANCE AND COMMENT ON THE SHORES PARK MASTER PLANNING PROCESS. (VOTE 4-0)
Ayes: Mayor Gaasterland; Deputy Mayor Martinez; Councilmembers Quirk and Spelich; Noes: 0; Recuse: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.

IT WAS MOVED BY DEPUTY MAYOR MARTINEZ AND SECONDED BY MAYOR GAASTERLAND TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND REAFFIRM THE PREFERRED PARK AMENITIES AND TIERS (VOTE 4- 0)
Ayes: Mayor Gaasterland; Deputy Mayor Martinez; Councilmembers Quirk and Spelich; Noes: 0; Recuse: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.

IT WAS MOVED BY DEPUTY MAYOR MARTINEZ AND SECONDED BY MAYOR GAASTERLAND

TO APPOINT MAYOR GAASTERLAND AND COUNCILMEMBER SPELICH AS THE COUNCIL LIAISONS TO THE SHORES PARK MASTER PLAN AD-HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE. (VOTE 4-0) Ayes: Mayor Gaasterland; Deputy Mayor Martinez; Councilmembers Quirk and Spelich; Noes: 0; Recuse: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.

IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR GAASTERLAND AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SPELICH

TO BRING TRADE OFFS AND OPTIONS FOR THE OFF-LEASH DOG AREA AND ALVARADO HOUSE AS PART OF THE MASTER PLANNING PROCESS (VOTE 4-0) Ayes: Mayor Gaasterland; Deputy Mayor Martinez; Councilmembers Quirk and Spelich; Noes: 0; Recuse: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.

ITEM 10: AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.

AND RELATED ACTIONS FOR UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT X1A (CREST CANYON) (CLERK’S FILE NO. 406-1)
An introduction to the item was provided by City Manager Jones. A presentation was provided by Principal Engineer Martin Boyd. Public Works Director Joe Bride was available to answer questions.

Council questions focused on the clarification of the project contingency; cost estimates provided by City consultants; line-item costs from the submitted project bids; impact of the trenching depth on project cost; construction management time commitment on an hourly or basis; potential for hiring in-house construction management staff; contractor’s warranty on their work and the City’s liability defense; project timing for the SDG&E and private lateral construction stages; and outreach and communication efforts with the residents.

There were no public speakers for the item.

Council discussion focused on the success of the bidding process and expressed satisfaction with the bids received below the engineer’s estimates. Council commended the efforts of the City staff involved in the project.
5 September 22, 2025 Item 1
City Council Regular Minutes
September 8, 2025

Page 6 of 7 ends

IT WAS MOVED BY MAYOR GAASTERLAND AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER QUIRK TO APPROVE ALL OF STAFF’S RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
1) APPROVE THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPARENT LOWEST BIDDER, TRI-GROUP

CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, DUE TO A CLERICAL ERROR UNDER PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE 5103;
2) AWARD A $7,128,769.96 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO TC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. (ATTACHMENT A) FOR THE UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT (UUD) X1A (CREST CANYON) PROJECT;
3) APPROVE A $663,280 TASK ORDER WITH UTILITY SPECIALISTS SOUTHWEST, INC.

FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES (ATTACHMENT B);
4) APPROVE A $119,633 TASK ORDER WITH NOVA SERVICES, INC. FOR GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES (ATTACHMENT C);
5) APPROVE A $123,400 TASK ORDER WITH HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, INC.

FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SERVICES (ATTACHMENT D);
6) APPROVE A 10% PROJECT CONTINGENCY OF $712,877;
7) AUTHORIZE THE APPROPRIATION OF $6,886,465 IN UNEXPENDED FUNDS FROM THE PRIOR YEAR TO BE CARRIED OVER TO FY 2025-26 FOR THE CREST CANYON PROJECT; AND,
8) AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS AND

ANY CONTRACT AND TASK ORDER CHANGES, WITHIN THE PROJECT CONTINGENCY, NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE WORK. (VOTE 4-0) Ayes: Mayor Gaasterland; Deputy Mayor Martinez; Councilmembers Quirk and Spelich; Noes: 0; Recuse: 0; Absent: 0; Abstain: 0.

ITEM 11: CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION ON POTENTIAL INCENTIVES TO CREATE LOWINCOME UNITS IN CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY’S MID CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT PRODUCTION PROGRESS (CLERK’S FILE NO. 304-7)
An introduction to the item was provided by City Manager Jones and explained that the primary purpose of the item was for the Council to receive a mid-cycle evaluation report and consultant evaluation of the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)-related recommendations to amend existing incentive programs to reach the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element goal to create 15 low-income ADUs by April 2029. A comprehensive agenda item to initiate this work plan priority will be presented to the City Council early next year.

A presentation was provided by Principal Planner Amanda Lee. Planning and Community Development Director Karen Brindley was available to answer questions.

Council questions focused on whether ADUs designated as care givers could qualify as affordable units and how the City can gather information from these property owners in order for these sites to be counted toward the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation.

There were no public speakers for the item.

The Council received the presentation and deferred consideration of whether to provide staff direction to bring forward an amended incentive program for consideration by the City Council at a future date. 6 September 22, 2025 Item 1
City Council Regular Minutes
September 8, 2025

Page 7 of 7 ends

REGIONAL ORGANIZATION AND COUNCIL COMMITTEES/SUBCOMMITTEES/COMMUNITY

ORGANIZATION REPORTS
City Council representatives reported on the San Dieguito River Valley JPA and Undergrounding Program Advisory Committee.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Gaasterland adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
__
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/
City Clerk
7 September 22, 2025 Item 1

DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES

CLOSED SESSION
SEPTEMBER 8, 2025
City of Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California 92014

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Terry Gaasterland called the meeting to order at 3:45 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Terry Gaasterland; Deputy Mayor Tracy Martinez; Councilmembers Dan Quirk (arrived at 3:55 p.m.) and John Spelich

CLOSED SESSION
A) Conference with Legal Counsel - Significant Exposure to Litigation Number of Cases: One
Description: Bid process and contract award for Utility Undergrounding District X1A (Crest Canyon)
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)
Reportable Action: None.

Mayor Gaasterland adjourned the meeting at 4:10 p.m.
_______________________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/
City Clerk
8 September 22, 2025 Item 1

Vendor Payment Checks $ 187,601.66
Voids -
Electronic Fund Transfers (EFT) 480,312.03
Electronic Wires 118,540.23
Total $ 786,453.92
Approved by: Approved by:

Marco Camacho Terry Gaasterland
Finance Manager/Treasurer Mayor
Date: Date:

Attachments: Check Registers

LIST OF DEMANDS

CITY OF DEL MAR
for
City Council Meeting
September 22, 2025
9/15/25
1 September 22, 2025 Item 2
09/02/2025
Check List
City of Del Mar
1 4:09:15PM
apChkLst Final Page:

Bank : eusbnk EFT GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK
Check # Date Vendor Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 7142 9/4/2025 22n01 22ND DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL 13989 7/1/2025 FIRE STATION LEASE FY26 135,454.20 135,454.20 Voucher: 7142
7143 9/4/2025 ace02 ACE UNIFORMS LLC VS0130325 8/27/2025 UNIFORMS FIRE 713.98 Voucher: 7143 SD0236730 8/26/2025 UNIFORMS CS 156.00 869.98 7144 9/4/2025 bak09 BAKER ELECTRIC 6277 8/15/2025 SOLAR MAINT CH 3,077.20 3,077.20 Voucher: 7144
7145 9/4/2025 cha71 CHARTER COMM HOLDINGS LLC, CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 189125601 8/14/2025 INTERNET CH - AUG 1,390.13 Voucher: 7145 189125301 8/14/2025 CH FIBER TO LFGRDS 490.13 189123101 8/14/2025 LIFEGUARD FIBER AUG 490.13
189123801 8/14/2025 LFGRD FIBER - AUG 412.74
189125701 8/14/2025 CH FIBER TO FIRE - AUG 412.74
189112801 8/14/2025 VIDEO TRANSPORT/PEG 335.35
8448 41 006 01714638/13/2025 PUBLIC WIFI PHCC AUG 166.25 189125501 8/14/2025 PUBLIC WIFI CH - AUG 119.99
189125801 8/14/2025 VIDEO TRANSPORT/PEG - AUG 335.35
189125401 8/14/2025 DMTV INTERNET 119.99
189123001 8/14/2025 LFGRD CABLE/INTERNET AUG 100.00
189125201 8/14/2025 INTERNET TV STUDIO 93.34 4,466.14
7146 9/4/2025 cit11 CITY OF ENCINITAS 3478 6/1/2025 FIRE MGT SRVC JAN/JUN 170,135.00 Voucher: 7146 3477 6/1/2025 COOP RESOURCE - DEC/MAY 7,742.53 3480 6/1/2025 SOFTWARE REIMB - FY26 1,623.71
3480 6/1/2025 MTG EXP FY25 243.97 179,745.21
7147 9/4/2025 phi01 CLEAN EARTH 072025036 8/20/2025 CITE SRVCS - JUL 20,244.83 Voucher: 7147 0720251036 8/20/2025 ADMIN CITE SRVCS - JUL 248.50 20,493.33 7148 9/4/2025 cor15 CORONADO MOBILE STORAGE INC SEP-25 9/1/2025 STORAGE CONTRS SEP 255.00 255.00 Voucher: 7148
7149 9/4/2025 dix01 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO 06-0611434 8/20/2025 OPERATING SUPP CS 173.95 Voucher: 7149 06-0610683 8/14/2025 OPERATING SUPP PW 78.51 06-0610343 8/13/2025 OPERATING SUPP PW 68.21
06-0610105 8/12/2025 OPERATING SUPP PW 45.66
06-0610097 8/12/2025 EQUIP/MAINT SUPP PW 29.15
06-0610284 8/13/2025 OPERATING SUPP PW 24.93
06-0610147 8/12/2025 OPERATING SUPP PW 9.29
06-0609764 8/11/2025 SEWER SUPP PW 9.08 438.78
Page: 1
2 September 22, 2025 Item 2
09/02/2025
Check List
City of Del Mar
2 4:09:15PM
apChkLst Final Page:

Bank : eusbnk EFT GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 7150 9/4/2025 fer07 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES LLC, DBA FERGUSON WATERWORKS 0888935 8/13/2025 WATER METER PARTS 445.16 445.16 Voucher: 7150
7151 9/4/2025 gov01 GOVERNMENTJOBS.COM, INC., DBA NEOGOV INV-142934 8/15/2025 ONLINE JOB APP SFTWR 5,004.39 5,004.39 Voucher: 7151
7152 9/4/2025 man12 MANERI TRAFFIC CONTROL INC, DBA MTC 24062 8/14/2025 DELINEATORS PW 1,193.87 Voucher: 7152 24060 8/14/2025 STREET SIGNS PW 810.19 2,004.06 7153 9/4/2025 mik03 MIKHAIL OGAWA ENGINEERING12131 8/3/2025 FOG SRVCS JUL 2,914.90 Voucher: 7153 12130 8/3/2025 TRASH DEVICES 295.39 3,210.29 7154 9/4/2025 nat21 NATIONWIDE MEDICAL/SURGICAL IN47622 8/26/2025 AMBULANCE SUPP FIRE 199.78 199.78 Voucher: 7154
7155 9/4/2025 pru01 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY132331305 8/22/2025 MATS PW - 8/22 15.47 Voucher: 7155 132331306 8/22/2025 SHOP TOWELS PW - 8/22 4.41 19.88 7156 9/4/2025 sit01 SITEONE LNDSCP SUPPLY LLC156962435-001 8/6/2025 LANDSCAPE SUPP PW 989.63 989.63 Voucher: 7156
Sub total for EFT GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK: 356,673.03
Page: 2
3 September 22, 2025 Item 2
09/02/2025
Check List
City of Del Mar
3 4:09:15PM
apChkLst Final Page:

Bank : gusbnk GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK
Check # Date Vendor Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 140100 9/4/2025 adt02 ADT SECURITY SERVICES 1159807599 8/19/2025 ALARM 1658 COAST SEP/DEC 145.47 145.47 Voucher: 140100
140101 9/4/2025 sbc03 AT&T 9391031506 8/20/2025 TELEPHONE AUG 60.85 Voucher: 140101 9391026231 8/20/2025 TELEPHONE AUG 60.85 121.70 140102 9/4/2025 azt02 AZTEC LANDSCAPING INC, DBA AZTEC JANITORIAL J2135 7/31/2025 PORTER SRVCS JUL 7,824.00 7,824.00 Voucher: 140102
140103 9/4/2025 bab03 BABCOCK LABORATORIES, INCCH50976-10666 8/18/2025 WATER TESTING 620.00 620.00 Voucher: 140103
140104 9/4/2025 nes01 BLUETRITON BRANDS INC, DBA READYREFRESH 05H8710074974 8/22/2025 WATER CH 88.98 88.98 Voucher: 140104
140105 9/4/2025 cin02 CINTAS 5288371115 8/25/2025 FIRST AID KIT SUPP CH 83.85 Voucher: 140105 5287743401 8/21/2025 FIRST AID KIT SUPP PW 380.04 463.89 140106 9/4/2025 cit07 CITY OF SAN DIEGO 1000428655 8/19/2025 WATER TREATMENT JUL 62,428.50 62,428.50 Voucher: 140106
140107 9/4/2025 cla15 CLAIMS MANAGEMENT ASSOC INC 522200 8/17/2025 CLAIMS ADMIN JUN 246.45 Voucher: 140107 522201 8/17/2025 CLAIMS ADMIN JAN/FEB 190.80 522199 8/17/2025 CLAIMS ADMIN MAR/JUN 103.35 540.60
140108 9/4/2025 com20 COMFORT SOLUTIONS GROUP DBA, UNIVERSAL AUTOMATION SVCS 1571 8/18/2025 HVAC SRVCS PW 887.00 887.00 Voucher: 140108
140109 9/4/2025 cou01 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 08072025 8/7/2025 PARKING BAIL JUL 38,988.50 38,988.50 Voucher: 140109
140110 9/4/2025 dav24 DAVIS FARR LLP 3357 8/19/2025 AUDIT SERVICES - AUG 10,000.00 10,000.00 Voucher: 140110
140111 9/4/2025 dun02 DUNN-EDWARDS PAINTS 2082A31507 8/19/2025 STREET PAINT PW 14.32 14.32 Voucher: 140111
140112 9/4/2025 fri06 FRIEDMAN & SPRINGWATER LLP 1000940 8/11/2025 UG CONSULT SRVCS 2,148.00 2,148.00 Voucher: 140112
140113 9/4/2025 gol17 GOLDEN ERGONOMICS LLC 12012 8/8/2025 ERGO EVALS 650.00 650.00 Voucher: 140113
140114 9/4/2025 hin06 HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS AND, ASSOC SIN052869 7/31/2025 ACFR STAT DATA 795.00 795.00 Voucher: 140114
140115 9/4/2025 pac05 PACIFIC PIPELINE SUPPLY S100479154-002 8/8/2025 WATER METER PARTS 910.34 Voucher: 140115 S100479311.001 8/12/2025 WATER METER PARTS 10.88 921.22 140116 9/4/2025 pet01 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH FY 258/26/2025 OPERATING SUPP FY25 307.75 307.75 Voucher: 140116
Page: 3
4 September 22, 2025 Item 2
09/02/2025
Check List
City of Del Mar
4 4:09:15PM
apChkLst Final Page:

Bank : gusbnk GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 140117 9/4/2025 rcp01 RCP BLOCK & BRICK INC. 33432429 8/8/2025 BULK FERTILIZED SOIL PW 306.94 306.94 Voucher: 140117
140118 9/4/2025 san138 SAN DIEGO ELEVATOR & LIFTS10611 8/18/2025 ELEVATOR MAINT CH AUG 200.00 Voucher: 140118 10588 8/18/2025 ELEVATOR MAINT CS AUG 150.00 350.00 140119 9/4/2025 sdg02 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC0065 9549 9411 6 8/6/2025 UTILITIES JUL 24.18 Voucher: 140119 0065 9549 9411 6 7/8/2025 UTILITIES JUN 23.78 0065 9549 9411 6 6/6/2025 UTILITIES MAY 22.21
0065 9549 9411 6 5/8/2025 UTILITIES APR 20.74
0065 9549 9411 6 4/7/2025 UTILITIES MAR -60.32 30.59
140120 9/4/2025 sou02 SOUTHCOAST HEATING & AIR COND. 1446331 8/12/2025 HVAC SRVCS PW 325.00 325.00 Voucher: 140120
140121 9/4/2025 sub02 SUBOTIC, LUKA 08272025 8/27/2027 PHCC EVENT REFUND 800.00 800.00 Voucher: 140121
140122 9/4/2025 uni31 UNITED SITE SRVCS OF, CALIFORNIA INC 114-14111431 8/14/2025 PORTABLE RESTROOM - AUG 320.82 320.82 Voucher: 140122
140123 9/4/2025 ver12 VERIZON 73435002 8/20/2025 TELEPHONE JUL 128.54 Voucher: 140123 Z1591837 8/8/2025 TELEPHONE MAY/JUN 5.28 Z1591837 8/8/2025 TELEPHONE JUL 2.64 136.46
140124 9/4/2025 ver03 VERIZON WIRELESS 570653198-00008 8/18/2025 TELEPHONE AUG 1,101.24 Voucher: 140124 570653198-00006 8/18/2025 TELEPHONE AUG 239.53 872374736-00004 8/18/2025 TELEPHONE AUG 226.06 1,566.83 140125 9/4/2025 vu01 VU, CHRISTINE 08272025 8/27/2025 PHCC EVENT REFUND 800.00 800.00 Voucher: 140125
140126 9/4/2025 cal86 VULCAN MATERIALS CO 532115 6/30/2025 OPERATING SUPP PW 65.97 Voucher: 140126 541112 7/31/2025 OPERATING SUPP PW 25.16 91.13 140127 9/4/2025 was02 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF CA, INC 0008657-4653-1 9/2/2025 MULCH PW 556.88 556.88 Voucher: 140127
140128 9/4/2025 wax02 WAXIE'S ENTERPRISES, LLC. DBA, WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 83446717 8/19/2025 JANITORIAL SUPP PW 1,383.59 1,383.59 Voucher: 140128
Sub total for GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK: 133,613.17
Page: 4
5 September 22, 2025 Item 2
09/02/2025
Check List
City of Del Mar
5 4:09:15PM
apChkLst Final Page:
44 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 490,286.20 Page: 5
6 September 22, 2025 Item 2
09/03/2025
Check List
City of Del Mar
1 11:45:44AM
apChkLst Final Page:

Bank : gusbnk GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK
Check # Date Vendor Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 140129 9/4/2025 nor11 NORTH COUNTY FORD 08272025 8/27/2025 F150 TRUCK PW 40,844.94 40,844.94 Voucher: 140129
Sub total for GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK: 40,844.94
Page: 1
7 September 22, 2025 Item 2
09/03/2025
Check List
City of Del Mar
2 11:45:44AM
apChkLst Final Page:
1 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 40,844.94 Page: 2
.
8 September 22, 2025 Item 2
9 September 22, 2025 Item 2
10 September 22, 2025 Item 2
11 September 22, 2025 Item 2
09/09/2025
Check List
City of Del Mar
1 4:10:21PM
apChkLst Final Page:

Bank : eusbnk EFT GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK
Check # Date Vendor Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 7163 9/10/2025 kay01 ADAM KAYE AUG-25 8/29/2025 COMM SRVCS AUG 3,825.00 3,825.00 Voucher: 7163
7164 9/10/2025 cal81 CALLTOWER INC 202708328 8/25/2025 TELEPHONE SEP 251.83 251.83 Voucher: 7164
7165 9/10/2025 cha71 CHARTER COMM HOLDINGS LLC, CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 189123701 8/14/2025 FIBER CONNECTION PW AUG 567.52 Voucher: 7165 189123401 8/14/2025 CABLE/INTERNET PW AUG 231.19 798.71 7166 9/10/2025 coa21 COAST NEWS GROUP 00158279 8/15/2025 AD - PUBLIC HEARING 143.38 Voucher: 7166 00158278 8/15/2025 AD - PUBLIC HEARING 135.63 279.01 7167 9/10/2025 cor22 CORVEL CORPORATION 1883861-63 8/29/2025 WC SRVCS - AUG 3,251.20 Voucher: 7167 1882522 8/19/2025 MED MAINT - AUG 256.00
1882968 8/19/2025 FNOL FEES - JUL 227.34 3,734.54
7168 9/10/2025 del14 DEL MAR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION 3 9/8/2025 DMVA AGRMNT JUL 39,667.75 39,667.75 Voucher: 7168
7169 9/10/2025 dev02 DEVANEY PATE MORRIS & CAMERON 10828 8/20/2025 CITY ATTORNEY JUL 24,643.40 Voucher: 7169 10827 8/20/2025 LEGAL FEES JUL 2,318.00
10826 8/20/2025 LEGAL FEES JUL 1,293.20
10824 8/20/2025 LEGAL FEES JUL 219.60 28,474.20
7170 9/10/2025 dix01 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO 06-0611970 8/26/2025 OPERATING SUPP PW 457.44 Voucher: 7170 06-0612488 8/29/2025 OPERATING SUPP CS 338.75 06-0612171 8/27/2025 OPERATING SUPP PW 309.55
06-0611832 8/26/2025 OPERATING SUPP PW 165.13
06-0611181 8/19/2025 OPERATING SUPP PW 98.86
06-0612337 8/28/2025 OPERATING SUPP PW 67.87
06-0611641 8/22/2025 OPERATING SUPP PW 52.80
06-06127 9/1/2025 TOOL SUPP FIRE 48.92
06-0611462 8/22/2025 OPERATING SUPP PW 39.61
06-0612378 8/29/2025 OPERATING SUPP PW 38.73
06-0611229 8/20/2025 OPERATING SUPP PW 25.43
06-0612513 8/29/2025 OPERATING SUPP PW 23.77
06-0611172 8/19/2025 OPERATING SUPP PW 12.71 1,679.57
7171 9/10/2025 fer07 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES LLC, DBA FERGUSON WATERWORKS 0889159 8/28/2025 WATER METER PARTS 1,676.50 Voucher: 7171 0889308 8/18/2025 WATER METER PARTS 138.77 1,815.27 7172 9/10/2025 opt03 OPTIMIZED INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC 1472 9/4/2025 INVSTMT SRVCS AUG 2,276.16 2,276.16 Voucher: 7172
Page: 1
12 September 22, 2025 Item 2
09/09/2025
Check List
City of Del Mar
2 4:10:21PM
apChkLst Final Page:

Bank : eusbnk EFT GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 7173 9/10/2025 par51 PARKWOOD LANDSCAPE MAINT INC 109847 7/31/2025 LANDSCAPE SRVCS PW JUL 16,950.00 Voucher: 7173 109973 8/2/2025 LANDSCAPE SRVCS PW JUL 980.00 17,930.00 7174 9/10/2025 pru01 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY132330155 8/15/2025 UNIFORMS PW - 8/15 420.55 Voucher: 7174 132331307 8/22/2025 UNIFORMS PW - 8/22 123.17 132327841 8/1/2025 UNIFORMS PW - 8/1 78.42
132332477 8/29/2025 UNIFORMS PW - 8/29 67.22
131018424 8/28/2025 UNIFORMS REFUND PW - 8/28 -8.98
131018425 8/28/2025 UNIFORMS PW - 8/28 -53.15
131018426 8/28/2025 UNIFORMS REFUND PW - 8/28 -348.48 278.75 7175 9/10/2025 red04 REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS INC INV0106849 8/31/2025 RED LIGHT CAMERA AUG 5,283.00 5,283.00 Voucher: 7175
Sub total for EFT GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK: 106,293.79
Page: 2
13 September 22, 2025 Item 2
09/09/2025
Check List
City of Del Mar
3 4:10:21PM
apChkLst Final Page:

Bank : gusbnk GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK
Check # Date Vendor Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total 140130 9/10/2025 sbc03 AT&T 9391054486 8/20/2025 TELEPHONE AUG 185.94 Voucher: 140130 9391026230 8/20/2025 TELEPHONE AUG 62.04 9391026228 8/20/2025 TELEPHONE AUG 31.20
9391065056 8/27/2025 TELEPHONE AUG 29.64
9391065055 8/27/2025 TELEPHONE AUG 29.61 338.43
140131 9/10/2025 bab03 BABCOCK LABORATORIES, INCCH51210-10666 8/21/2025 WATER TESTING 39.64 39.64 Voucher: 140131
140132 9/10/2025 cou16 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO - REGIONAL, COMM SYSTEM 26CTOFDMM02 9/1/2025 RADIO MAINT LFGRD AUG 542.37 Voucher: 140132 26CTOFDMC02 9/1/2025 RCS PAGING SRVCS - AUG 70.00 612.37 140133 9/10/2025 gal02 GALLS LLC 032194405 8/11/2025 UNIFORMS CS 40.09 40.09 Voucher: 140133
140134 9/10/2025 ats01 GARDA CL WEST LOCKBOX #233209 10825846 9/1/2025 ARMORED SRVCS SEP 727.67 727.67 Voucher: 140134
140135 9/10/2025 gra02 GRAINGER 9605017459 8/12/2025 OPERATING SUPP PW 248.58 248.58 Voucher: 140135
140136 9/10/2025 lie01 LIEBERT, CASSIDY WHITMORE305046 8/31/2025 LEGAL FEES AUG 2,280.00 2,280.00 Voucher: 140136
140137 9/10/2025 con17 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTRS, OF CALIFORNIA, A MEDICAL 87861850 8/14/2025 EMPLOYEE TESTING - AUG 206.00 206.00 Voucher: 140137
140138 9/10/2025 sdg02 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC0012 6209 1548 9 8/29/2025 UTILITIES AUG 133.49 133.49 Voucher: 140138
140139 9/10/2025 san112 SAN DIEGO HUMANE SOCIETY, & SPCA SEP-25 9/1/2025 ANIMAL SRVCS SEP 4,388.00 4,388.00 Voucher: 140139
140140 9/10/2025 sta36 STANDARD PLUMBING SUPPLY CO, DBA MWI PLUMBERS SUPPLY ZDWF01 8/27/2025 WATER METER PARTS 57.13 57.13 Voucher: 140140
140141 9/10/2025 uni25 STAXUP - UNITS LLC 19275 9/5/2025 STORAGE CS SEP 289.85 289.85 Voucher: 140141
140142 9/10/2025 uni31 UNITED SITE SRVCS OF, CALIFORNIA INC 114-14114781 8/21/2025 PORTABLE RESTROOM - AUG 1,450.85 Voucher: 140142 114-14114784 8/21/2025 PORTABLE RESTROOM - AUG 565.25 114-14114783 8/21/2025 PORTABLE RESTROOM - AUG 265.25 2,281.35 140143 9/10/2025 ver03 VERIZON WIRELESS 570653198-00009 8/18/2025 TELEPHONE AUG 40.42 Voucher: 140143 570653198-00007 8/18/2025 TELEPHONE AUG 38.01 78.43 140144 9/10/2025 wax02 WAXIE'S ENTERPRISES, LLC. DBA, WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 83465974 8/27/2025 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 866.85 Voucher: 140144 83452837 8/21/2025 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 555.67 1,422.52 Page: 3
14 September 22, 2025 Item 2
09/09/2025
Check List
City of Del Mar
4 4:10:21PM
apChkLst Final Page:

Sub total for GENERAL ACCOUNT US BANK: 13,143.55
Page: 4
15 September 22, 2025 Item 2
09/09/2025
Check List
City of Del Mar
5 4:10:21PM
apChkLst Final Page:
28 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 119,437.34 Page: 5
16 September 22, 2025 Item 2
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Nicole Morrow, AICP, Associate Planner
Isam Hasenin, Contract Building Official
Karen Brindley, Planning & Community Development Director Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: September 22, 2025
SUBJECT: Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance to Adopt the 2025 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments within Chapters 23.12 and 23.70 of the Del Mar Municipal Code
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance (Attachment A) amending Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 23.12 to adopt the 2025 Edition of the California Building Standards Code, adopt the California Wildland-Urban Interface Code, amend Chapters 23.12 and 23.70 to reflect local amendments to the 2025 California Building Standards Code, and continue to apply various locally adopted amendments thereto as necessary to reflect Del Mar’s unique characteristics and approach to design and development review.

BACKGROUND:

On September 8, 2025, the City Council introduced an Ordinance (Attachment A) to amend the DMMC to adopt the 2025 Edition of California Building Standards Code, including various locally adopted amendments. The California Building Standards Code includes sections related to building, electrical, fire, plumbing, mechanical, energy, residential, and green building standards which establish the minimum enforceable standards for construction.

The State of California regularly updates its Building Standards Codes to incorporate updated safety standards based on the model codes prepared by professional associations such as the International Code Council. Local jurisdictions are required to adopt the updated State codes and the City may also adopt local amendments to the model code to reflect the City’s characteristics and approach to design and development review.
1 September 22, 2025 Item 4
City Council Agenda Report
Adoption of the 2025 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments September 22, 2025

Page 2 of 3 ends

The City adopts and incorporates these State code regulations into the DMMC Title 23 Building and Construction regulations. Since these regulations are not a part of the DMMC Title 30 Zoning Code or certified Local Coastal Program, the City Council has authority over the final action. There is no requirement for a Planning Commission recommendation or review by the California Coastal Commission.

The 2025 Edition of the California Building Standards Code will take effect statewide on January 1, 2026. Due to approval of Assembly Bill 130 earlier this year, a moratorium prohibiting amendments to a local jurisdiction’s building standards will begin on October 1, 2025, and will be effective through June 1, 2031. Once the moratorium takes effect, the City will only be allowed to amend its Building Standards under specified conditions and with the approval of the California Building Standards Commission.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

The Ordinance will carry forward the existing locally adopted amendments and incorporate two new local amendments to the 2025 Edition of the California Building Standards Code. The purpose of these amendments is to increase the safety of swimming pool design to prevent accidental access and to clarify the City’s procedure for determining compliance with the Waste Management Program (WMP) as described below:

1. By incorporating the State’s model code (Appendix CI of the 2025 California Residential Code) into DMMC Section 23.12.067, the City will confirm compliance with the Swimming Pool Safety Act requirements for swimming pool enclosures, pool alarms, and suction and pump systems for swimming pools located on a single-family residential property. This amendment is intended to increase the safety of private swimming pools by reducing the likelihood of accidental access to the pool or pool equipment.

2. Amends DMMC Chapter 23.70 (Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling) to clarify the type of documentation required by the City’s Building Inspector to demonstrate compliance with the City’s Waste Management Program for construction and demolition (C&D) waste. The California Green Building Code (CalGreen) requires that at least 65% of C&D waste from qualifying projects is disposed of at a facility certified to process C&D waste. This amendment does not create new requirements, rather it codifies existing procedures and will assist staff in collecting the type of documentation necessary to demonstrate that the City is adequately enforcing the State-mandated recycling of construction materials.

If adopted by the City Council, the Ordinance will be filed with the California Building Standards Commission to become effective in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7(a). Although the Ordinance will take effect 30 days from adoption by the City Council, the regulations will not become operative until January 1, 2 September 22, 2025 Item 4
City Council Agenda Report
Adoption of the 2025 California Building Standards Code and Local Amendments September 22, 2025

Page 3 of 3 ends

2026, consistent with the effective date of the 2025 Edition of the California Building Standards Code.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact or action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item. The review of a development’s conformance with the applicable building codes is processed through a separate review of development applications and building permits.

As part of that process, the City applies fee charges to recover a portion of the administrative costs incurred to provide such reviews. No changes are proposed for the existing City’s fee schedule for issuance of Building Division related permits.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

This project is not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3). It can be seen with certainty that the adoption of the State-mandated Building Codes with minor amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment.

HOUSING IMPACT:

NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

Updating the DMMC to adopt the California Building Codes by reference and incorporate local modifications is a Tier 1 priority for Fiscal Year 2025-26.

ATTACHMENT:

Attachment A – Ordinance to Amend DMMC Chapters 23.12 and 23.70 3 September 22, 2025 Item 4
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL

MAR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING DEL MAR MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 23.12 (CALIFORNIA CODES FOR CONSTRUCTION)
BY AMENDING SECTIONS 23.12.010, 23.12.011, 23.12.012,

23.12.013, 23.12.014, 23.12.020, 23.12.030, 23.12.040,

23.12.050, 23.12.060, 23.12.061, 23.12.062, 23.12.063,

23.12.064, 23.12.065, 23.12.066, 23.12.070, 23.12.080 AND

23.12.090, 23.70.050; BY ADDING NEW SECTIONS 23.12.067
AND 23.12.100; BY ADDING NEW DIVISIONS, DIVISION 8,
DIVISION 9 AND DIVISION 10; AND BY DELETING SECTIONS

23.12.018, 23.12.082, 23.12.084 AND ALL RELATING TO
APPLICABILITY OF THE 2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING

STANDARDS CODE AND ASSOCIATED NATIONAL AND STATE

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION CODES WITHIN THE CITY OF

DEL MAR
WHEREAS, the Ordinance updates locally adopted building and construction codes (last updated in 2022) to incorporate the 2025 California Building Standards Code and associated National and State codes with minor modifications to reflect local conditions; and
WHEREAS, the 2025 California Building Standards Code is based on the 2024 editions of the International Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, and Uniform Mechanical Code; 2023 edition of the National Electrical Code; 2025 California Energy Code; 2025 California Residential Code; 2025 California Green Building Code; 2025 California Administrative Code; 2025 California Reference Standards Code and 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code; and
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code section 17958 requires that cities adopt building regulations that are substantially the same as those adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and contained in the California Building Standards; and
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code section 17958 permits local jurisdictions to make such changes or modifications to the California Building Standards Codes as are necessary due to local climatic, geological or topographical conditions; and WHEREAS, on August 29, 2025, the notice of City Council public hearing was published in the Coast News; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing for introduction of the Ordinance; and
4 September 22, 2025 Item 4
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 2 of 19 ends

WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the minor modifications and changes to the California Building Standards Code are reasonably necessary to ensure consistent application of the codes throughout the State; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments do not constitute an amendment to the City’s certified Local Coastal Program, which means that the final decision on the ordinance will be made by the Del Mar City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Del Mar hereby ordains as follows:

SECTION ONE:

That Section 23.12.010 Chapter 23.12 Division 1 (Building Code) of the Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

23.12.010 - Adoption of the 2025 California Building Code, Part 2, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

There is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as the City Building Code for the purpose of prescribing regulations in the City of Del Mar for the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, moving, removal, conversion, demolition, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area, and maintenance of buildings and structures, the 2025 California Building Code, Part 2, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code, Section 18902 et seq. based on the International Building Code, 2024 Edition. Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter or any other section of the City of Del Mar Municipal Code, all erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, moving, removal, conversion, demolition, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area and maintenance of buildings and structures within the City of Del Mar shall be in conformance with the 2025 California Building Code and the adopted Appendix Chapters, published by the California Building Standards Commission.

SECTION TWO:

That the title of Section 23.12.011 of Chapter 23.12 Division 1 (Building Code) is amended to read as follows

23.12.011 - Local Adoption of Amendments to the California Building Code.

Section 101.1 Title shall be amended as follows, "These regulations shall be known as the Building Code of the City of Del Mar, hereinafter referred to as "this code."" SECTION THREE:
5 September 22, 2025 Item 4
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 3 of 19 ends

That the title of Section 23.12.012 of Chapter 23.12 Division 1 (Building Code), is amended to read as follows:

23.12.012 - Local Amendment to Section 105.1 of the California Building Code.

Local amendments to Section 105.1 (Required) to require permits for repaving and restriping by adding the following statement at the end of Section 105.1 - Required:
"A building permit is required for repaving and/or re-striping of all parking lots serving commercial, office, multi-family and hotel buildings and structures. Re-striping shall meet the current edition of the CBC."
Finding and Justification:

That the City of Del Mar, due to its unique local topographic conditions, has determined it is necessary to establish more restrictive building standards than those set forth in the California Building Standards Code. The City Council specifically finds that the unusually hilly nature of the city, the many steep slopes in the city, and to ensure continued access for people with disabilities necessitates that building permit be required for re-striping of parking lots serving commercial, office, multi-family and hotel buildings and structures.

SECTION FOUR:

That Section 23.12.013 of Chapter 23.12 Division 1 (Building Code), is amended to read as follows:

Section 23.12.013 - Local Amendment to Section 105.2 of the California Building Code.

Local amendments to Section 105.2 (Work exempt from a Building Permit) are as follows:

1. Modifies California Building Code Section 105.2 - 1. as follows: One-story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses, provided that the floor area does not exceed than 48 square feet (4.46 square meters). It is permissible that these structures still be regulated by Part 7 California Wildland Urban-Interface Code, despite exemption from permit.

2. Modifies California Building Code Section 105.2 - 2. as follows: Fences not over 12 inches (305 mm) high.

3. Modifies California Building Code Section 105.2 - 4. as follows: Retaining walls that are not over 12 inches (305 mm) in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, II or IIIA liquids.

4. Modifies California Building Code Section 105.2 - 6. by adding the following exemption at the end of item 6: "Sidewalks and driveways not more than 30 inches in the rear yard, and 18 inches in the side yard, above adjacent grade, and not over any basement or story below and are not part of an accessible 6 September 22, 2025 Item 4
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 4 of 19 ends

route. This exception applies only to structures accessory to a single-family dwelling (Group R, Division 3 Occupancy)."
Unless otherwise exempted by this code, separate plumbing, electrical and mechanical permits will be required for the above exempted items.

Finding and Justification:

That the City of Del Mar, due to its unique local topographic and geological conditions, has determined it is necessary to establish more restrictive building standards than those set forth in the California Building Standards Code. The City Council specifically finds that the unusually hilly nature of the city, the many steep slopes in the city, the higher risk of slope failures and landslides, the need to ensure incorporation of clean water design standards, and the unusually small size of residential lots, necessitate that building permit be required for fences and retaining walls over 12 inches in height and walks and sidewalks of more than 30 inches in the rear yard, and 18 inches in the side yard.

SECTION FIVE:

That Section 23.12.014 of Chapter 23.12 Division 1 (Building Code), is amended to read as follows:

23.12.014 - Local Amendment to Section 1505.1 of the California Building Code.

Local amendments to Section 1505.1 (General) and Table 1505.1 (Minimum Roof Assembly Classification for Types of Construction) are as follows:
1505.1 General. Fire classification of roof assemblies shall be in accordance with Section 1505. The minimum fire classification of roof assemblies installed on buildings shall comply with Table 1505.1 based on type of construction of the building. Class A roof assemblies and roof coverings required to be listed by this section shall be tested in accordance with ASTM E108 or UL 790.

No wood shake or shingle products are permitted to be installed on the roof of any Occupancy Group.

Class A Roof-Covering shall not be required for roof repair where the proposed improvements are at or below 10% of the total roof area. This exemption shall be allowed for only one repair of 10% or less. Subsequent roof repairs shall be required to meet the standards set forth in Section 1503 of the California Building Code.

For re-roofing of existing residential buildings, the Class A Roofing Assembly may be limited to the part of the assembly specified from the sheathing upward, provided the existing sheathing is solid with a minimum thickness of 3/8". Where spaced sheathing currently exists, it shall be replaced or covered with sheathing of a thickness required for a Class A assembly.
7 September 22, 2025 Item 4
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 5 of 19 ends

Roofing shall be secured or fastened to support the roof construction and shall provide weather protection for the building at the roof.

TABLE 1505.1

MINIMUM ROOF ASSEMBLY CLASSIFICATION

FOR TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION

IA IB IIA IIB IIIA IIIB IV VA VB

A A A A A A A A A
Local amendments to Section 1505.1.2 (Roof coverings within all other areas other than Fire Hazard Severity Zones or a Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI)). are as follows:
1505.1.2 Roof coverings within all other areas other than Fire Hazard Severity Zones or a Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI). The entire roof covering of every existing structure where more than 10 percent of the total roof area is replaced within any one-year period, the entire roof covering of every new structure, and any roof covering applied in the alteration, repair or replacement of the roof of every existing structure, shall be a fire-retardant roof covering that is at least Class A fire classification.

Finding and Justification:

That the City of Del Mar has many large brush-covered hillsides. The City is subject to frequent Santa Ana conditions consisting of dry gusting winds, which create extreme fire dangers. The City Council specifically finds that these topographic and climatic conditions necessitate greater fire protection than that provided by the 2022 California Building Code. Therefore, this chapter alters the 2025 California Building Code, to require Class A fire retardant roof coverings throughout the city.

SECTION SIX:

That Section 23.12.018 of Chapter 23.12 Division 1 (Building Code) is removed to repeal a reference to outdated appendices.

SECTION SEVEN:

That Section 23.12.020 of Chapter 23.12 Division 2 (Electrical Code) be amended to read as follows:

23.12.020 - Adoption of the 2025 California Electrical Code Part 3, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.
8 September 22, 2025 Item 4
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 6 of 19 ends

There is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as the city electrical code for the purpose of prescribing regulations in the city of Del Mar for the installation, alteration or repair of electrical systems and permit requirements and inspection thereof, the 2025 California Electrical, Part 3, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code based on the National Electrical Code, 2023 Edition.

Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter other parts of the City of Del Mar Municipal Code, all installation, alteration, or repair of electrical systems within the City of Del Mar shall be in conformance with the 2025 California Electrical Code published by the California Building Standards Commission.

SECTION EIGHT:

That Section 23.12.030 of Chapter 23.12 Division 3 (Plumbing Code) be amended to read as follows:

23.12.030 - Adoption of the 2025 California Plumbing Code. Part 5. Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

There is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as the City Plumbing Code for the purpose of prescribing regulations in the City of Del Mar for the construction, alteration, moving, demolition, repair and use of all plumbing, gas or drainage piping and systems or water heating or treating equipment in or on any building or structure or outdoors on any premises or property, the 2025 California Plumbing Code, Part 5, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California Health and Safety Code, Section 18902 et seq. Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter and other parts of the City of Del Mar Municipal Code, all construction, alteration, moving, demolition, repair and use of all plumbing, gas or drainage piping and systems or water heating or treating equipment within the City of Del Mar shall be in conformance with 2025 California Plumbing Code, published by the California Building Standards Commission.

SECTION NINE:

That Section 23.12.040 of Chapter 23.12 Division 4 (Mechanical Code) be amended to read as follows:

23.12.040 - Adoption of the 2025 California Mechanical Code. Part 4. Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

There is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as the City Mechanical Code for the purpose of prescribing regulations in the City of Del Mar for the erection, installation, alteration, repair, relocation, replacement, addition to, use or maintenance of any heating, ventilating, cooling, refrigeration systems, incinerators or other miscellaneous heatproducing appliances, the 2025 California Mechanical Code, Part 4, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California Health and Safety Code, Section 18902 et seq. Except as 9 September 22, 2025 Item 4
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 7 of 19 ends

otherwise provided by this Chapter and other parts of the City of Del Mar Municipal Code, all erection, installation, alteration, repair, relocation, replacement, addition to, use or maintenance of any heating, ventilating, cooling, refrigeration systems, incinerators or other miscellaneous heat-producing appliances shall be in conformance with California State Building Standards Code and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, published by the California Buildings Standards Commission.

SECTION TEN:

That Section 23.12.050 of Chapter 23.12 Division 5 (Energy Code) be amended to read as follows:

23.12.050 - Adoption of the 2025 California Energy Code. Part 6. Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

There is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as the city energy code for the purpose of prescribing regulations in the City of Del Mar for the conservation of energy the 2025 California Energy Code, Part 6, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California Health and Safety Code, Section 18902 et seq. Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter and other parts of the City of Del Mar Municipal Code, all construction of buildings where energy will be utilized shall be in conformance with California Building Standards Code and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, including the California Energy Commission 2025 California Energy Code, published by the California Energy Commission.

SECTION ELEVEN:

That Section 23.12.060 and 23.12.061 of Chapter 23.12 Division 6 (Residential Code) be amended to read as follows:

23.12.060 - Adoption of the 2025 California Residential Code, Part 2.5, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

There is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as the city residential code for the purpose of prescribing regulations in the City of Del Mar for the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal and demolition of one- and two-family dwellings, and townhouses, the California Residential Code, Part 2.5, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California Health and Safety Code, Section 18902 et seq. and the 2025 California Residential Code. Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter and other parts of the City of Del Mar Municipal Code, all construction of one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses shall be in conformance with the California Building Standards Code and rules and regulations promulgated pursuant there to, including the 2025 California Residential Code, and the 10 September 22, 2025 Item 4
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 8 of 19 ends

adopted Appendix Chapters, published by the California Building Standards Commission.

SECTION TWELVE:

That Section 23.12.061 of Chapter 23.12 Division 6 (Residential Code) be amended to read as follows:

23.12.061 - Local Adoption of Amendments to the California Residential Code.

Section R101.1 Title shall be amended as follows, "These provisions shall be known as the Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings of the City of Del Mar and shall be cited as such and will be referred to herein as "this code””.

SECTION THIRTEEN:

That Section 23.12.062 of Chapter 23.12 Division 6 (Residential Code) is amended to read as follows:

23.12.062 - Local Amendment to Section R105.2 of the California Residential Code.

Local amendments to Section R105.2 (Work exempt from a Building Permit) are as follows:

1. Modifies California Residential Code Section R105.2 - 1. as follows: One-story detached accessory structures, provided that the floor area does not exceed 48 square feet (4.46 square meters). It is permissible that these structures shall be regulated by Part 7 California Wildland Urban-Interface Code, despite exemption from permit.

2. Modifies California Residential Code Section 105.2 - 2. as follows: Fences not over 12 inches (305 mm) high.

3. Modifies California Residential Code Section 105.2 - 3. as follows: Retaining walls that are not over 12 inches (305 mm) in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge.

4. Modifies California Residential Code Section 105.2 - 5. to add an additional requirement as follows: Sidewalks and driveways. not more than 30 inches in the rear yard, and 18 inches in the side yard, above adjacent grade, and not over any basement or story below and are not part of an accessible route.

This exception applies only to structures accessory to a single-family dwelling (Group R, Division 3 Occupancy).

Finding and Justification:

Page 9 of 19 ends

standards, and the unusually small size of residential lots necessitates that building permit be required for fences and retaining walls over 12 inches in height and walks and sidewalks of more than 30 inches in the rear yard, and 18 inches in the side yard.

SECTION FOURTEEN:

That Section 23.12.063 of Chapter 23.12 Division 6 (Residential Code) be amended to read as follows:

23.12.063 - Local Amendment to Section R902.1 of the California Residential Code.

Local amendments to Section R902.1 (Roof Assemblies) to delete reference to Class B and C roof covering and be consistent with Section 1505 of the California Building Code as follows:

R902.1 Roof assemblies.

Roof decks shall be covered with materials as set forth in Section R904 or with roof coverings as set forth in Section R905. Where Class A roof assemblies are required, they shall be tested in accordance with ASTM E108 or UL 790. Where required, the roof assembly shall be listed and identified as to class by an approved testing agency.

Exceptions:

1. Class A roof assemblies include those with coverings of brick, masonry and exposed concrete roof deck.

2. Class A roof assemblies include ferrous or copper shingles or sheets, metal sheets and shingles, clay or concrete roof tile, or slate installed on noncombustible roof decks or ferrous, copper or metal sheets installed without a roof deck on noncombustible framing.

3. Class A roof assemblies include minimum 16 ounces per square foot (4.882 kg/m2) copper sheets installed over combustible roof decks.

4. Class A roof assemblies include slate installed over underlayment over ASTM D226, Type II underlayment over combustible decks.

All roof-coverings, including re-roofing except as specified in Section R902.1.2 below, shall be of a roof classification not less than a Class A Roof-Covering.

No wood shake or shingle products are permitted to be installed on the roof of any Occupancy Group.

For re-roofing of existing residential buildings, the Class A Roofing Assembly may be limited to the part of the assembly specified from the sheathing upward, provided the existing sheathing is solid with a minimum thickness of 3/8". Where spaced sheathing currently exists, it shall be replaced or covered with sheathing of a thickness required for a class A assembly.
12 September 22, 2025 Item 4
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 10 of 19 ends

Roofing shall be secured or fastened to the supporting roof construction and shall provide weather protection for the building at the roof.

Finding and Justification:

The City of Del Mar’s topography is characterized by many large hillsides. The City’s climate promotes the heavy growth of natural vegetation that covers the hillsides and is highly flammable, especially in the dry season. There are numerous areas of wildlandurban interface where structures, especially residences, are in close proximity to that natural vegetation. The City’s climate is characterized by Santa Ana conditions involving dry gusty winds. In summer and fall, the typical weather is hot and dry. In combination, these climatic conditions create an extreme fire danger to the community. Seasonal winds also have the potential for impeding emergency vehicle access by toppling trees (especially eucalyptus and pine which are species that are prevalent in the City and susceptible to being felled by winds). As a result of the above conditions, the risk of fire ignition is greater. Also, once a fire is ignited, it is more likely that embers will be blown into the air, increasing the spread of the fire into the community. Land use projects need to be developed to provide a greater ability to avoid fire ignition, suppress fires, and facilitate access of emergency vehicles. The City Council specifically finds that these conditions necessitate greater fire protection than that provided by the 2025 California Residential Code. Therefore, this chapter alters the 2025 California Residential Code, to require Class A fire retardant roof coverings throughout the city.

SECTION FIFTEEN:

That Section 23.12.064 of Chapter 23.12 Division 6 (Residential Code) be amended to read as follows:

23.12.064 - Local Amendment to Section R902.1.2 of the California Residential Code.

Local amendments to Section R902.1.2 to be renumbered to be consistent with the 2025 California Residential Code to read as follows:

R902.1.2 Roof Covering in all other areas. The entire roof covering of every existing structure where more than 10 percent of the total roof area is replaced within any oneyear period, the entire roof covering of every new structure, and any roof covering applied in the alteration, repair or replacement of the roof of every existing structure, shall be a fire-retardant roof covering that is at least Class A.

Finding and Justification:

Page 11 of 19 ends

natural vegetation. The City’s climate is characterized by Santa Ana conditions involving dry gusty winds. In summer and fall, the typical weather is hot and dry. In combination, these climatic conditions create an extreme fire danger to the community. Seasonal winds also have the potential for impeding emergency vehicle access by toppling trees (especially eucalyptus and pine which are species that are prevalent in the City and susceptible to being felled by winds). As a result of the above conditions, the risk of fire ignition is greater. Also, once a fire is ignited, it is more likely that embers will be blown into the air, increasing the spread of the fire into the community. Land use projects need to be developed to provide a greater ability to avoid fire ignition, suppress fires, and facilitate access of emergency vehicles. The City Council specifically finds that these conditions necessitate greater fire protection than that provided by the 2025 California Residential Code. Therefore, this chapter alters the 2025 California Residential Code, to require Class A fire retardant roof coverings throughout the city.

SECTION SIXTEEN:

That Section 23.12.065 of Chapter 23.12 Division 6 (Residential Code) be amended to read as follows:

23.12.065 - Local Amendment to Section R309.1 Exception of the California Residential Code.

Section R309.1 (Townhouse Automatic Sprinkler Systems) Exception is amended to read as follows:

R309.1 Exception: An automatic residential fire sprinkler system may be required by the Fire Code Official when additions or alterations are made to existing townhouses that do not have an automatic residential fire sprinkler installed.

Finding and Justification:

Page 12 of 19 ends

requiring that automatic residential fire sprinkler systems may be required by the Fire Code Official when additions or alterations are made to existing townhouses that do not have an automatic residential fire sprinkler installed.

SECTION SEVENTEEN:

That Section 23.12.066 of Chapter 23.12 Division 6 (Residential Code) be amended to read as follows:

23.12.066 - Local Amendment to Section R309.2 Exception of the California Residential Code.

Section R309.2 (One- and Two-family Dwellings Automatic Sprinkler Systems) Exceptions is amended to read as follows:

R309.2 Exceptions:

1. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system may be required by the Fire Code Official for additions or alterations to existing buildings that are not already provided with an automatic residential fire sprinkler system.

Finding and Justification:

The City of Del Mar’s topography is characterized by many large hillsides. The City’s climate promotes the heavy growth of natural vegetation that covers the hillsides and is highly flammable, especially in the dry season. There are numerous areas of wildlandurban interface where structures, especially residences, are in close proximity to that natural vegetation. The City’s climate is characterized by Santa Ana conditions involving dry gusty winds. In summer and fall, the typical weather is hot and dry. In combination, these climatic conditions create an extreme fire danger to the community. Seasonal winds also have the potential for impeding emergency vehicle access by toppling trees (especially eucalyptus and pine which are species that are prevalent in the City and susceptible to being felled by winds). As a result of the above conditions, the risk of fire ignition is greater. Also, once a fire is ignited, it is more likely that embers will be blown into the air, increasing the spread of the fire into the community. Land use projects need to be developed to provide a greater ability to avoid fire ignition, suppress fires, and facilitate access of emergency vehicles. The City Council specifically finds that these conditions necessitate greater fire protection than that provided by the 2025 California Residential Code. Therefore, this chapter alters the 2025 California Residential Code, to require that an automatic residential fire sprinkler system may be required by the Fire Code Official for additions or alterations to existing buildings that are not already provided with an automatic residential fire sprinkler system.

SECTION EIGHTEEN:

That Section 23.12.067 of Chapter 23.12 Division 6 (Residential Code) is added to read as follows:
15 September 22, 2025 Item 4
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 13 of 19 ends

23.12.067 - Adoption of Appendix CI of the 2025 California Residential Code.

Appendix CI of the 2025 California Residential Code is adopted.

Finding and Justification:

To comply with the Swimming Pool Safety Act found in Health and Safety Code Sections 115920 through 115929.

SECTION NINTEEN:

That Section 23.12.070 of Chapter 23.12 Division 7 (Green Building Code) be amended to read as follows:

23.12.070 - Adoption of the 2025 California Green Building Code, Part 11, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

There is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as the city green building code for the purpose of prescribing regulations in the City of Del Mar for improving public health, safety and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices, the 2025 California Green Building Code, Part 11, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Code, as defined in the California Health and Safety Code, Section 18902 et seq. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter and other parts of the Del Mar Municipal Code, all construction shall be in conformance with the California Building Standards Code and rules and regulations promulgated pursuant there to, including the 2025 California Green Building Code, published by the California Building Standards Commission and Appendix A5 (Tier 1 non-residential voluntary measures), incorporated herein by reference, is adopted as mandatory provisions for all new non-residential construction and any non-residential construction over a $150,000.00 valuation as determined by the City of Del Mar Building Division.

SECTION TWENTY:

That DIVISION 8, is added to read as follows:

DIVISION 8. – ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
SECTION TWENTY-ONE:

That Section 23.12.080 of Chapter 23.12 Division 8 (Administrative Code) be amended to read as follows:

23.12.080 - Adoption of the 2025 California Administrative Code, Part 1, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.
16 September 22, 2025 Item 4
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 14 of 19 ends

The California Administrative Code, Part 1, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as the city administrative code for the purpose of prescribing regulations in the City of Del Mar.

SECTION TWENTY-TWO:

That Sections 23.12.082 and 23.12.084 of Chapter 23.12 Division 8 (Administrative Code) are removed to repeal prior “reserved” sections that are not needed.

SECTION TWENTY-THREE:

That DIVISION 9, is added to read as follows:

DIVISION 9. – REFERENCE STANDARDS CODE
SECTION TWENTY-FOUR:

That Section 23.12.090 of Chapter 23.12 Division 9 (Reference Standards Code) be emended to read as follows:

23.12.090 - Adoption of the 2025 California Reference Standards Code, Part 12, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

The California Reference Standards Code is adopted and incorporated by reference herein for the purpose of prescribing regulations in the City of Del Mar.

SECTION TWENTY-FIVE:

That DIVISION 10, is added to read as follows:

DIVISION 10. – WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE CODE
SECTION TWENTY-SIX:

That Section 23.12.100 of Chapter 23.12 Division 10 (Wildland Urban Interface Code) is added to read as follows:

23.12.100 - Adoption of the 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code, Part 7, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

Page 15 of 19 ends

Urban Interface Code, Part 7, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code, Section 18902 et seq. based on the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code, 2024 Edition. Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter or any other section of the City of Del Mar Municipal Code, all construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached within the City of Del Mar shall be in conformance with the 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code, published by the California Building Standards Commission.

SECTION TWENTY-SEVEN:

No changes to Sections 23.70.010 – 23.70.040 of Chapter 23.70 (Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling).

That Section 23.70.050 of Chapter 23.70 (Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling) is amended to read as follows:

23.70.050 - Compliance with Waste Management Plan.

A. Documentation. Prior to requesting a final inspection, the applicant shall submit documentation to the Building Official that the diversion requirement for the project has been met. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain the required documentation from the vendor and/or recycling facility. If the applicant does not submit the required documentation, the applicant may be subject to enforcement action pursuant to DMMC 23.70.070. The documentation for compliance shall include the following:

1. Copies of waste tickets or similar documentation from the vendor or recycling facility that collected or received each material, listing the following information:
a. The address of the recycling facility;
b. The project permit number(s);
c. The project address or place of origin;
d. The weight of each material collected; and
e. A description of the waste type.

1. The Applicant shall ensure that the vendor has accurately categorized material that has been diverted from disposal with a waste type label such as “Construction & Demolition,” “Recycling,” “Re-Use,” or other similar labels to denote that the material is not intended for disposal.

2. Tickets coded as “Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)”, “Trash”, “Waste”, or other similar coding to denote that the material is 18 September 22, 2025 Item 4
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 16 of 19 ends

intended for disposal shall be counted as disposal in
determining the project’s overall diversion rate.

2. A copy of the approved WMP for the project adding the actual weight of each material diverted and landfilled.

B. Weighing of Wastes. Applicants shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that all C&D debris diverted or landfilled is measured and recorded using the most accurate method of measurement available. To the extent practical, all C&D debris shall be weighed by measurement on scales. Such scales shall be in compliance with all regulatory requirements for accuracy and maintenance. For C&D debris for which weighing is not practical due to small size or other considerations, a volumetric measurement shall be used. For conversion of volumetric measurements to weight, the applicant shall use the standardized conversion rates.

C. Determination of Compliance.

1. Full Compliance. If the applicant has fully complied with the diversion requirement for the project, the final WMP report shall be approved.

2. Good Faith Effort to Comply. On a very limited basis, if the diversion requirement has not been achieved, the Planning and Community Development Director shall determine on a case-by-case basis whether the applicant has made a good faith effort to comply considering the following:
a. The availability of markets for the C&D debris landfilled; b. The percent of total waste diverted;
c. The size of the project; and
d. The documented efforts of the applicant to divert C&D debris.

If the Planning and Community Development Director determines that the applicant has made a good faith effort to comply with this chapter, the Director may approve the final WMP report.

3. Noncompliance. If the applicant has been found to have not made a good faith effort to comply with the diversion requirement applicable to the project, or if the applicant fails to submit the documentation required by Subsection A of this Section, then the applicant shall be subject to the enforcement provisions of DMMC 23.70.070. Any penalty assessed must be paid to the City prior to final inspection.

4. Noncompliance Notification and Appeal. Upon a determination of noncompliance, the applicant shall be notified of the WMP report findings.

The notice shall be in writing and shall identify the specific area(s) of noncompliance with the WMP and inform the applicant that it has a right to a hearing to appeal the determination pursuant to DMMC 1.12. 19 September 22, 2025 Item 4
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 17 of 19 ends

No changes to Sections 23.70.060 (Exemptions) and 23.70.070 (Enforcement) of Chapter

23.70. Finding and Justification:

To comply with the California Waste Management Act of 1989, Assembly Bill 939, the City of Del Mar developed and implemented a waste diversion program to address the State-mandated diversion of construction and demolition waste. The City’s program was adopted by ordinance on August 5, 2019. Through the course of implementation, it has become necessary to clarify the requirements of the documentation needed to demonstrate that C&D waste was properly disposed of. By adopting this amendment to the City’s code, the City is improving its implementation of the California Green Building Code.

SECTION TWENTY-EIGHT:

This Ordinance was assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The City Council hereby finds that under Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that the provisions contained herein would not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION TWENTY-NINE:

This Ordinance was introduced by the City Council on September 8, 2025.

SECTION THIRTY:

The City Clerk is directed to prepare and have published a summary of this Ordinance no less than five days prior to the consideration of its adoption and again within 15 days following adoption indicating votes cast.

SECTION THIRTY-ONE:

If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.

SECTION THIRTY-TWO:

Upon adoption, the City Building Official is hereby authorized and directed to file a copy of this Ordinance with the California Building Standards Commission consistent with Section 17958.7(a) of the California Health and Safety Code. 20 September 22, 2025 Item 4
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 18 of 19 ends

SECTION THIRTY-THREE:

Per State mandate, the 2025 Edition of the California Building Standards Code does not go into effect until January 1, 2026. Upon adoption, the Ordinance will take effect and be in force 30 days from the date of City Council adoption (“Effective Date”), but the provisions of the Ordinance shall not be operative until January 1, 2026.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California at the Regular Meeting held this 22nd day of September, 2025. ____________________________
Terry Gaasterland, Mayor
City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
21 September 22, 2025 Item 4
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 19 of 19 ends

ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CITY OF DEL MAR
I, SARAH KRIETOR, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. XXXX, which has been published pursuant to law, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 22nd day of September, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

RECUSE:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
22 September 22, 2025 Item 4
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Nicole Morrow, AICP, Associate Planner
Jordan Villagomez, Fire Marshal
Karen Brindley, Planning & Community Development Director Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: September 22, 2025
SUBJECT: Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance to Adopt the 2025 California Fire Code, 2025 California Wildland Urban Interface Code, and Local Amendments
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance (Attachment A) amending Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 10.04 to adopt the 2025 Edition of the California Fire Code, adopt the 2025 Edition of the California Wildland-Urban Interface Code (CWUIC), amend Chapter 10.04 to reflect a local amendment to the 2025 California Fire Code, and continue to apply various locally adopted amendments thereto as necessary to reflect the Del Mar Fire Department’s approach to fire prevention and protection.

BACKGROUND:

On September 8, 2025, the City Council introduced an Ordinance to amend the DMMC to adopt the 2025 Edition of the California Fire Code, including various locally adopted amendments. The Ordinance also includes language to adopt the new 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code (CWUIC), which is the consolidation of existing standards from Chapter 7A of the California Building Code, Section R337 of the California Residential Code, and Chapter 49 of the California Fire Code into the code format used by the International Code Council.

The State of California regularly updates its Building Standards Codes, which include the California Fire Code and CWUIC, to incorporate updated safety standards based on the model codes prepared by professional associations such as the International Code Council. Local jurisdictions are required to adopt the updated State codes through the Ordinance process and the City may also adopt local amendments to the model code to reflect the City’s characteristics and approach to design and development review. 1 September 22, 2025 Item 5
City Council Agenda Report
Adoption of 2025 California Fire Code, Wildland Urban Interface Code, and Local Amendments September 22, 2025

Page 2 of 3 ends

The City adopts and incorporates these State code regulations into the DMMC Title 10 Fire Prevention regulations. Since these regulations are not a part of the DMMC Title 30 Zoning Code or certified Local Coastal Program, the City Council has authority over the final action. There is no requirement for a Planning Commission recommendation or review by the California Coastal Commission.

The 2025 Editions of the California Fire Code and CWUIC will take effect statewide on January 1, 2026. Due to the approval of Assembly Bill 130 earlier this year, a moratorium prohibiting amendments to a local jurisdiction’s building standards will begin October 1, 2025, and will be effective through June 1, 2031. Once the moratorium takes effect, the City will only be allowed to amend its Building Standards under specified conditions and with the approval of the California Building Standards Commission.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

As proposed, all existing locally adopted amendments will continue to apply. In addition to the existing locally adopted amendments, one new local amendment would be incorporated into the 2025 Edition of the California Fire Code to require wildfire and ember-resistant vents for all residential units undergoing remodels, additions, or alterations. The proposed addition of DMMC Section 10.04.150 builds off the existing ventilation requirements of Section 504 of the State Fire Code by obligating that the vents placed in residential structures are approved as a wildfire flame and ember-resistant vent.

This requirement is a cost-effective way to implement home hardening strategies in older structures. The amendment is intended to increase the resilience of the community by reducing the vulnerability of structures that were built prior to the adoption of updated home hardening regulations.

If adopted by the City Council, the Ordinance will be filed with the California Building Standards Commission to become effective in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7(a). Although the Ordinance will take effect 30 days from adoption by the City Council, the regulations will not become operative until January 1, 2026, consistent with the effective date of the 2025 Editions of the California Fire Code and CWUIC.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact or action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item. The review of a development’s conformance with the applicable fire codes is processed through a separate review of development applications and building permits.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
2 September 22, 2025 Item 5
City Council Agenda Report
Adoption of 2025 California Fire Code, Wildland Urban Interface Code, and Local Amendments September 22, 2025

Page 3 of 3 ends

This project is not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3). It can be seen with certainty that the adoption of the State-mandated Fire Codes with minor amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment.

HOUSING IMPACT:

Local adoption of the updated State-mandated building-related regulations will facilitate development of housing that complies with the minimum public health and safety standards as well as additional standards to reflect Del Mar’s unique characteristics and approach to design and development review. This includes greater safety in designated fire hazard severity zones through additional building design requirements for home hardening consistent with the General Plan goals and policies for new housing and safety.

NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

Updating the DMMC to adopt the California Building Codes by reference and incorporate local modifications is a Tier 1 priority for Fiscal Year 2025-26.

ATTACHMENT:

Attachment A – Ordinance to Amend DMMC Chapter 10.04
3 September 22, 2025 Item 5
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL

MAR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING DEL MAR MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 10.04 (FIRE PREVENTION) BY AMENDING
SECTIONS 10.04.010, 10.04.030, 10.04.040, 10.04.100 AND

10.04.110; BY CONFIRMING THAT THE LOCALLY ADOPTED
AMENDMENTS IN EXISTING SECTIONS 10.04.050, 10.04.060,

10.04.070, 10.04.080, 10.04.090, 10.04.120 AND 10.04.130 WILL CONTINUE TO APPLY; BY ADDING NEW SECTIONS 10.04.140
AND 10.04.150; ALL RELATING TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE 2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODES AND

ASSOCIATED STATE FIRE CODE WITHIN THE CITY OF DEL
MAR
WHEREAS, Chapter 10.04 of the Del Mar Municipal Code is the Del Mar Fire Code, which adopts by reference the International Fire Code and the California Fire Code; and
WHEREAS, there is a need to amend Chapter 10.04 because the State of California (“State”), pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 17922, has recently adopted the 2024 version of the International Fire Code and the 2025 version of the California Fire Code (together, the “Fire Code”), in addition to the new 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code; and
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code section 17958 requires that cities adopt building regulations that are substantially the same as those adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and contained in the California Fire Code and California Wildland-Urban Interface Code; and
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code section 17958 permits local jurisdictions to make such changes or modifications to the California Building Standards Codes as are necessary due to local climatic, geological or topographical conditions; and WHEREAS, local amendments adopted by the City of Del Mar shall take precedence over the Fire Code; and
WHEREAS, on August 29, 2025, the notice of City Council public hearing was published in the Coast News; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing for introduction of the Ordinance; and
4 September 22, 2025 Item 5
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 2 of 18 ends

WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the minor modifications and changes to the California Fire Code are reasonably necessary to ensure consistent application of the codes throughout the State; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments do not constitute an amendment to the City’s certified Local Coastal Program, which means that the final decision on the ordinance will be made by the Del Mar City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Del Mar hereby ordains as follows:

SECTION ONE:

The City Council hereby confirms that the following findings are still applicable to conditions within the City of Del Mar pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 17958.5:

Finding A
The City of Del Mar is adjacent to a major transportation corridor (Interstate 5) which traverses in a north/south direction. Interstate 5 is used to transport hazardous materials and is designated by the State of California as an approved route for transporting highly toxic and radioactive materials.

The City of Del Mar is bisected by a railroad line running north/south. Hazardous materials are transported on the railroad.

Underground pipes run parallel to the railroad line and carry natural gas under high pressure. Underground pipes run in a north/south direction in the eastern portion of the City and carry liquid petroleum under high pressure.

The transport, through the City, of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive materials, as well as natural gas and liquid petroleum, on a regular basis, increases the threat of fire ignition and spread. This adds to the fire danger posed by the City’s climatic, topographic, and geological conditions.

Finding B
The City of Del Mar’s topography is characterized by many large hillsides. The City’s climate promotes the heavy growth of natural vegetation that covers the hillsides and is highly flammable, especially during the dry season. There are numerous areas of wildland-urban interface where structures, especially residential structures, are in close proximity to that natural vegetation. 5 September 22, 2025 Item 5
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 3 of 18 ends

The City’s climate is characterized by Santa Ana conditions involving dry gusty winds. In summer and fall, the typical weather is hot and dry. In combination, these climatic conditions create an extreme fire danger to the community.

Seasonal winds also have the potential for impeding emergency vehicle access by toppling trees (especially eucalyptus and pine which are species that are prevalent in the City and susceptible to being felled by winds).

As a result of the above conditions, the risk of fire ignition is greater. Also, once a fire is ignited, it is more likely that embers will be blown into the air, increasing the spread of fire into the community. Therefore, land use projects need to be developed to provide a greater ability to avoid fire ignition, suppress fires, and facilitate access of emergency vehicles.

Finding C
The City of Del Mar is situated on the west slope of the coastal foothills that contain drainages which contribute to flooding within the community.

Because flooding conditions can impede fire service vehicles reaching the site of a fire, land use projects need to be developed to provide a greater ability to avoid fire ignition, suppress fires, and facilitate access of emergency vehicles.

Finding D
The City of Del Mar is situated near the Rose Canyon Fault, the Elsinore Fault, and the Agua Caliente Fault. A cluster of faults known as the “South Coast Offshore Zone of Deformation” is located off the City’s coast. These geologic conditions are capable of generating earthquakes of significant magnitude at any time.

An earthquake may: (1) cause fires; (2) impede emergency vehicles responding to fires; and (3) interrupt the City’s water supply which is needed to fight fires.

Because the community is subject to damage from earthquakes, land use projects need to be developed to provide greater ability to avoid fire ignition, suppress fires, and facilitate access of emergency vehicles.

Finding E
The City of Del Mar and Southern California are semi-arid regions and experience water shortages from time to time. Those shortages can have a severely adverse effect on water availability for fire fighting. Fires starting in sprinkled buildings are typically controlled by one to three sprinkler heads, flowing as little as 13 gallons per minute.
6 September 22, 2025 Item 5
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 4 of 18 ends

Hose streams used by engine companies on well established structure fire operate at approximately 250 gallons per minute each, and the estimated water needed for a typical residential fire is 1,250 to 1,500 gallons per minute, according to the Insurance Service Office and the International Fire Code. The water estimate for a commercial building is typically greater than that of a residential fire.

Under circumstances such as lack of water, infrastructure, earthquakes, multiple fires, and wildland fire within a community, the limited water demand needs of residential fire sprinklers would control and extinguish many fires before they spread from building to wildland or building to building. In such a disaster, water demands needed for conflagration firefighting probably would not be available.

Finding F
Due to the sloping topography and coastal foothills in the City of Del Mar, the potential exists that new and future development will result in taller buildings on smaller parcels. Defining mid-rise building as 4 story buildings modifies the application of special provisions for these buildings to all occupancies. Because of the need to mitigate the potential danger of mid-rise buildings, this change is necessary.

In addition, the limitations of available firefighting equipment, limited availability of human resources in local fire departments, and the necessity to climb vertically up flights of stairs, greatly impacting the response time to reach an incident scene, it is necessary to define the height of mid-rise buildings. The reduced height and built-in protection will mitigate extended fire department response time and keep incidents manageable.

Finding G
Base upon the circumstances previously described, the protection of persons and property requires the City to adopt standards that are more stringent than those set forth in: (1) The State Building Code Sections 202, 308, 321, 503, 507, 902, 903, 905, 5608, 5704, 5705, 5706, 6104, B, I and Section 3 of the International Fire Code.

SECTION TWO:

That Section 10.04.010 of the Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

Chapter 10.04 - 2025 FIRE CODE

10.04.010 - Adoption of California Fire Code.

That a certain document, three copies of which are on file in the office of the City of Del Mar Fire Department being marked and designated as the 2024 International Fire Code 7 September 22, 2025 Item 5
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 5 of 18 ends

and 2025 California Fire Code, including Appendix B and I, and the 2025 California Wildland Urban Interface Code, as published by the International Code Council, is hereby adopted as the fire code of the City of Del Mar, State of California, regulating and governing the safeguarding of life and property from fire and explosion hazards arising from the storage, handling and use of hazardous substances, materials and devices, and from conditions hazardous to life or property in the occupancy of buildings and premises, or construction, erection, alteration, repair, moving, removal, conversion, demolition, equipment use, and maintenance of buildings and structures, including that providing for the issuance of permits and collection of fees therefore; and each and all of the regulations, provisions, penalties, conditions and terms of said Fire Code on file in the City of Del Mar Fire Department are hereby referred to, adopted, and made a part hereof, as if fully set out in this Chapter, with the additions, insertions, deletions and revisions, if any, prescribed in this Chapter.

SECTION THREE:

That Section 10.04.030 of the Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

Chapter 2 – Definitions
Section 202 - General Definitions. This section is added or revised to read:

Fire Hazard - is any condition or conduct which: (a) increases or may increase the threat of fire to a greater degree than customarily recognized as normal by persons in the public service regularly engaged in preventing, suppressing or extinguishing fire or (b) may obstruct, delay, hinder or interfere with the operations of the Fire Department or egress of occupants in the event of fire.

Fireworks - is any combustible or explosive composition, or any substance or combination of substances, or device prepared for the purpose of producing a visible or an audible effect by combustion, explosion, deflagration or detonation, and shall include blank cartridges, toy pistols, toy cannons, toy canes, or toy guns in which explosives are used, firecrackers, torpedoes, sky-rockets, roman candles, Daygo bombs, sparklers, snap caps, poppers or other devices of like construction and any devices containing any explosive or flammable compound, or any tablet or other device containing any explosive substance, except that the term "fireworks" shall not include any auto flares, paper caps containing not in excess of an average of twenty-five hundredths of a grain of explosive content per cap and toy pistols, toy canes, toy guns or other devices for use of such caps, the sale and use of which shall not be permitted at all times. "Fireworks" shall include snap caps and poppers, regardless of the amount of explosive content included in each device.

Hazardous Fire Area - Any geographic area mapped by the State or designated by the local jurisdiction as a moderate, high or very high fire hazard area, or which the FAHJ has determined is a hazardous fire area based on the type and condition 8 September 22, 2025 Item 5
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 6 of 18 ends

of vegetation, topography, weather, or structure density which may increase the possibility of the area being susceptible to wildfire.

Level - An area above or below grade including but not limited to; basements, garages, cellars, mezzanines, or similar uses.

Mid-Rise Commercial Building - a building four stories or more in height, but not exceeding 75 feet and not defined as a high-rise building by section 202 of the California Building Code. Measurements shall be made from the underside of the roof or floor above the topmost space that may be occupied, to the lowest level of fire apparatus access road level. Nothing in section 324 shall imply or allow a building height in excess of current City of Del Mar Planning and Zoning requirements.

Wherever the terms "This Code" and "2024 International Fire Code" are used, they shall mean the 2025 California Fire Code as modified by the City of Del Mar with the additions, deletions and revisions set forth in the amendments.

SECTION FOUR:

That Section 10.04.040 of the Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

10.04.040 - Chapter 57 Flammable and Combustible Liquids; Chapter 61 Liquefied Petroleum Gases.

Chapter 57 - Flammable and Combustible Liquids
Section 5704.2.9.6.1 - Locations where Above-ground Tanks are Prohibited. This section is revised to read:

In the City of Del Mar, (geographic limits in which the storage of class I and Class II liquids in above-ground tanks outside of buildings is prohibited): the limits referred to in Section 5704.2.9.6.1 and 5706.2.4.4 of the 2025 California Fire Code and the 2024 International Fire Code in which storage of flammable or combustible liquids in outside above-ground tanks is prohibited are hereby established as the jurisdictional limits of the City of Del Mar.

EXCEPTIONS:

1. 2000 gallons maximum temporary (six months maximum) aboveground tanks meeting UL 2085 for private use on farms, agricultural and rural property, remote construction sites, earth moving projects, gravel pits or borrow pits. Such tanks shall be specially designed, approved and listed, and have features incorporated into their design which mitigates concerns for exposure to heat (two-hour fire resistance), ignition sources and mechanical damage. A Fire Department permit will be required.
9 September 22, 2025 Item 5
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 7 of 18 ends

2. Crankcase drainings may be stored in specially constructed aboveground storage tanks, approved by the Fire Code Official, with a maximum capacity of 550 gallons.

Such tanks may be located within a building when the Fire Code Official deems appropriate, and the container meets the following: specially designed, approved and listed containers which have features incorporated into their design which mitigates concerns for exposure to heat, ignition sources and mechanical damage.

3. Containers must be installed and used in accordance with their listing, and provisions must be made for leak and spill containment. In no case shall such storage be permitted in residential or institutional property. All installations require a Fire Department permit.

4. With the approval of the Fire Code Official, Class I and II liquids may be stored in aboveground tanks inside or outside of buildings in specially designed, approved and listed containers which have features incorporated into their design which mitigates concerns for exposure to heat, ignition sources and mechanical damage.

Class I liquids will be limited to 550 gallons and Class II liquids will be limited to 1,100 gallons. Containers must be installed and used in accordance with their listing, and provisions must be made for leak and spill containment. The Fire Code Official may disapprove the installation of such containers when in his opinion their use presents a risk to life or property.

5. With the approval of the Fire Code Official, temporary storage of a maximum 10,000 gallons of Class II liquids may be permitted for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days at remote construction sites, earth moving projects, gravel pits or borrow pits, consistent with 5704 and 5706.

Section 5706.2.4.4 - Locations where Aboveground Tanks are prohibited. This section is revised to read:

The geographic limits in which the storage of Class I and Class II liquids in aboveground tanks are prohibited in residential areas within the City of Del Mar.

Section 5706.4 - Bulk Plants or Terminals. This section is revised to read:

The geographic limits in which bulk plants and terminals of flammable and combustible liquids are received are prohibited for the protection of heavily populated and congested areas and is hereby established as jurisdiction limits of the City of Del Mar.

Chapter 61 - Liquefied Petroleum Gases
Section 6104.2 - Maximum Capacity within Established Limits. This section is revised to read:

The geographic limits in which the bulk storage of liquefied petroleum gas is prohibited for the protection of heavily populated and congested areas is hereby established as jurisdiction limits of the City of Del Mar. The aggregate capacity of any one installation shall not exceed a water capacity of 2,000 gallons.
10 September 22, 2025 Item 5
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 8 of 18 ends

SECTION FIVE:

That Section 10.04.100 of the Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

10.04.100 - Appeals.

Section 112 Board of Appeals. This section is revised to read:

Whenever the Fire Marshal disapproves an application or refuses to grant a permit applied for, or when it is claimed that the provisions of this Code do not apply, or that the true intent and meaning of the Code has been misconstrued or wrongly interpreted, the applicant may appeal the decision of the Fire Marshal to the Del Mar City Council in writing within 10 days from the date of the decision appealed, in accordance with Chapter 1.12 of the Del Mar Municipal Code.

SECTION SIX:

That Section 10.04.110 of the Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:

10.04.110 - Penalties.

Section 113.4 - Violation Penalties. This section is revised to read:

A. Any person, corporation, association or entity that violates the provisions of Sections 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, or 111 or 113,115, and 116 of the 2025 California Fire Code is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person, corporation, association or entity that violates any other provisions of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor or infraction as determined under Chapter 1.08 Del Mar Municipal Code. The penalty for violations shall be determined under Chapter 1.08 of the Del Mar Municipal Code. Each day or portion thereof that a violation of this chapter exists shall constitute a separate violation. Each violation of this chapter, in addition to the offenses under this section, shall constitute a public nuisance.

B. The application of the above penalty shall not be held to prevent the enforced removal of prohibited conditions.

SECTION SEVEN:

That Section 10.04.140 of the Municipal Code is added to read as follows:

10.04.140 - Adoption of the 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code, Part 7, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.
11 September 22, 2025 Item 5
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 9 of 18 ends

There is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as the City Wildland-Urban Interface Code for the purpose of prescribing regulations in the City of Del Mar for the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached, the 2025 California WildlandUrban Interface Code, Part 7, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code, Section 18902 et seq. based on the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code, 2024 Edition. Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter or any other section of the City of Del Mar Municipal Code, all construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached within the City of Del Mar shall be in conformance with the 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code, published by the California Building Standards Commission.

SECTION EIGHT:

That Sections 10.04.050, 10.04.060, 10.04.070, 10.04.080, 10.04.090, 10.04.120,

10.04.130 are not being amended by this ordinance and will continue to read as follows:

10.04.050 - Explosives and Fireworks.

Chapter 56 Explosives and Fireworks
Section 5608.2 Fireworks. This section is added to read:

Fireworks shall not be sold, manufactured, disposed or discharged within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Del Mar, except when a permit is issued for public display, theatrical purposes and/or group entertainment by the Fire Department to a California State Fire Marshal licensed pyro-technician and the minimum requirements of Title-19, California Code of Regulations, Chapter-6, fireworks are met. The San Diego County Regulatory Ordinance, Title-3, Division2, Chapter 1, section 32.101 through 32.108 may be used as a guide when enforcing these requirements.

Section 5608.3 Fire Works Penalty. This section is added to read:

Fireworks Penalty - Any person violating any provision or failing to comply with this Chapter or the requirements of Title-19 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 6, and/or San Diego County Regulatory Ordinance, Title-3, Division-2, Chapter 1, section 32.101 through 32.108, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed One Thousand dollars ($1000) or by imprisonment in the County jail for a period of not more than one year or by both such fine and imprisonment.

10.04.060 - Mid-Rise Buildings.
12 September 22, 2025 Item 5
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 10 of 18 ends

Chapter 3 - General Requirements
Section 324 - Mid-Rise Buildings
Section 324.1 - General. This section is added to read:

All newly constructed mid-rise buildings or any mid-rise building which undergoes a complete structural or non-structural renovation that requires the vacancy of the entire building to complete the renovation, shall comply with sections 324.1-324.3.

Exceptions:

1. Buildings used exclusively as an open parking garage.

2. Buildings where all floors above the fourth-floor level are used exclusively as an open parking garage.

3. Buildings such as a power plant, lookout tower, steeple, grain house, or other similar structures with intermittent human occupancy.

Section 324.2 - Fire Equipment Control Room
A fire equipment control room for fire department operations shall be provided. The location and accessibility of the room shall be approved by the fire department and be separated from the remainder of the building by not less than a 1-hour barrier.

The room shall contain the following at a minimum:

1. Voice alarm and public address panels.

2. Fire alarm control panel.

3. Status indicators and controls for air-handling systems.

4. Fire pump status indicators (if required).

5. Set of complete building plans.

Section 324.3 - Road Dimensions
Fire apparatus access roads serving buildings or portions of buildings or facilities that exceed 30 feet in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 26 feet.

10.04.070 - Section 503 Fire Apparatus Access Roads.

Chapter 5 - Fire Service Features
Section 503 - Fire Apparatus Access Roads
Section 503.2.1 - Dimensions
Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed improved width of not less than 20 feet, except for single-family residential driveways; serving no more than 13 September 22, 2025 Item 5
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 11 of 18 ends

two, single-family dwellings, shall have a minimum of 16 feet of unobstructed improved width.

EXCEPTION:

Fire access roadways, gated entrances with card readers, guard stations or center medians, which have separated lanes of one-way traffic, shall be not less than 14 feet wide per lane.

Section 503.2.3 - Surface. This section is revised to read:

New or improved fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus not less than 75,000 lbs. and shall be provided with an approved driving surface to provide all-weather driving capabilities.

Section 503.2.7 - Grade. This section is revised to read:

New or improved grades exceeding 15% on fire apparatus access roads shall not be permitted without mitigation. Minimal mitigation shall be a surface of Portland cement concrete (PCC), with a deep broom finish perpendicular to the direction of travel. Maximum grade shall not exceed 20%.

Section 503.2.8 - Angles of Approach and Departure. This section is revised to read:

The angle of approach and departure of a fire access roadway shall not exceed 12% or as approved by the Fire Code Official.

Section 503.3 - Marking. This section is revised to read:

When required by the Fire Code Official, approved signs or other approved notices or markings shall be provided for all public and private fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit obstruction thereof. Signs or notices or markings shall be maintained in a clean and legible condition at all times and shall be replaced or repaired when necessary to provide adequate visibility. All new public roads, all private roads within major subdivisions and all private roads serving four or more parcels shall be named. Road name signs shall comply with City of Del Mar standards.

Section 503.6 - Security Gates. This section is revised to read:

Section 503.6 - Security Gates: No person shall install a security gate or security device across a fire access roadway without the Fire Code Official's approval.

1. An automatic gate across a fire access roadway or driveway shall be equipped with an approved emergency key-operated switch overriding all command functions and opening the gate.
14 September 22, 2025 Item 5
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 12 of 18 ends

2. A gate accessing more than four residences or residential lots, or a gate accessing any hazardous institutional, educational or assembly occupancy group structure, shall also be equipped with an approved emergency traffic control-activating strobe light sensor or other device approved by the Fire Code Official, which will activate the gate on the approach of the emergency apparatus with a battery back-up or manual mechanical disconnect in case of power failure.

3. An automatic gate shall meet Fire Department policies deemed necessary by the Fire Code Official for rapid, reliable access.

4. An automatic gate serving more than one dwelling or residential lot in existence at the time of adoption of this Chapter is required to install an approved emergency key-operated switch or other mechanism approved by the Fire Code Official, at an approved location, which overrides all command functions and opens the gate. A property owner shall comply with this requirement within 90 days of receiving written notice to comply.

5. Where this section requires an approved key-operated switch, it may be dual-keyed or equipped with dual switches provided to facilitate access by law enforcement personnel.

6. Electric gate openers, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with UL 325. Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed, and installed to comply with the requirements of ASTM F2200.

10.04.080 - Fire Protection Water Supplies and Fire Service Features.

Chapter 507 Fire Protection Water Supplies
Section 507.2.2 Water Tanks. This section is revised to read:

Water storage tanks, when permitted by the Fire Code Official, shall comply with Table No. 507.2.2A.

WATER STORAGE TANKS
Table No. 507.2.2A
TABLE NO. 507.2.2A
Building Square Feet Gallons per Minute
Water Flow
Capacity
Gallons
Duration
Minutes
Up to 1,500
Over 1,500
250
250
5,000
10,000
20 40
When exposure distance is one hundred feet (100') or less from adjacent property or where additional hazards or higher fire flow exists, the required water storage may be modified by the fire code official.
15 September 22, 2025 Item 5
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 13 of 18 ends

1. Tank elevation shall be equal to or higher than the fire department connection on the premises. Regardless of domestic use, all tanks shall be equipped with a device that will ensure that the tank contains the designated amount of water for fire flow duration as determined by the fire department.

Tank size may be increased to serve multiple structures on a single parcel.

2. Supply outlet shall be at least 4 inches in diameter from the base of the tank to the point of outlet at the fire department connection. The fire department connection shall provide an approved means of controlling water flow.

3. The outlet shall be located along an access roadway and shall not be closer than 50 feet or further than 150 feet from the structure.

4. All exposed tanks and exposed supply pipes shall be of an alloy or other material listed for above ground use. Adequate support shall be provided.

Section 507.5.1 Where Required. This section is revised to read:

The location, type and number of fire hydrants connected to a water supply capable of delivering the required fire flow shall be provided on the public or private street, or on the site of the premises to be protected or both. Fire hydrants shall be accessible to the fire department apparatus by roads meeting the requirements of section 503.

Section 507.5.1.01 Requirements for single-family dwellings. This section is revised to read:

In zones other than industrial, commercial and multi-family, fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with Table No. 507.5.1.01A.

Table No. 507.5.1.01A
TABLE 507.5.1.01A
Parcels ½ acre and larger: Every 500 feet
Parcels less than ½ acre: Every 350 feet
Section 507.5.1.02 Requirements for multi-family, commercial and industrial zones. This section is revised to read:

In multi-family zones and in commercial and industrial zones, fire hydrants shall be installed at intersections, at the beginning radius of cul-de-sacs, or as approved by the fire code official, and every 300 feet of fire access roadways, regardless of parcel size.

10.04.090 - Section 903 Automatic Sprinkler System Requirements; Section 905 Standpipe Systems.

Chapter 9 Fire Protection Systems
16 September 22, 2025 Item 5
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 14 of 18 ends

Section 903.2 Where Required. This section is revised to read:

Approved automatic sprinkler system in new building and structures shall be provided in the locations described in sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.12, and may be required in additions and remodels of existing structures as described in section 903.2.01.

Life Safety Sprinkler System shall meet National Fire Protection Association Standards 13-D and 13-R latest addition, and City of Del Mar installation policies, as appropriate.

Section 903.2.01 Additions, Remodels, and Reconstruction An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with 903.3 may be required to be installed throughout structures when the addition is more than 50% of the existing building or where the scope of work includes significant modifications to the interior or roof of the building.

Exceptions:

1. If the cost of the installation exceeds 15 percent of the valuation of the project. Formal bids shall be provided to the fire prevention bureau to be reviewed for acceptance.

2. If the addition to the existing building is strictly for the creation of a new Accessory Dwelling Unit; no additions or remodels to the existing building is permitted.

Section 903.2.02 New Commercial and Group U
An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with section 903.3 shall be required in buildings and structures where the required fire flow exceeds 1500 gallons per minute as calculated by section 507.3, or when the square footage of a new commercial building exceeds 5,000 square feet.
903.2.03 Exception
Agricultural buildings constructed of wood or metal frame, over which fabric or similar material is stretched, which are specifically used as green houses are exempt from the automatic sprinkler requirements unless physically connected to other structures.

Section 905 Standpipe Systems
Section 905.3 Required Installations. This section is revised to read:

A Class I standpipe with 2.5-inch hose valves shall be provided for all commercial buildings three levels or more in height, regardless of occupancy use. Hose valves 17 September 22, 2025 Item 5
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 15 of 18 ends

shall be located in each stair enclosure and on each floor level, including the roof.

For single story buildings or parking structures with large floor areas, Class I standpipes may be required.

10.04.120 - Administration.

Chapter 1 - Administration
Section 101.5 City of Del Mar Validity. This section is revised to read:

The City Council of the City of Del Mar hereby declares that should any section, paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance or of the code hereby adopted be declared for any reason to be invalid, it is the intent of the City Council of the City of Del Mar that it would have passed all other portions of this ordinance independently of the elimination here from of any such portion as may be declared invalid.

Section 102.13 Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances, Resolutions or motions. This section is revised to read:

Section 102.13 REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS OR MOTIONS.

All former ordinances, resolutions or motions, or parts thereof, which conflict or are inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance or of the Code or standards hereby adopted, are hereby repealed.

10.040.130 - General Requirements.

Chapter 3 General Requirements
Section 308.1.6.3. Sky Lanterns. This section is revised to read:

Sky lanterns, floating luminary, and similar devices propelled by open flame are prohibited for sale or use.

SECTION NINE:

That Section 10.04.150 of the Municipal Code is added to read as follows:

10.040.150 - CHAPTER 5 SPECIAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS Section 503 – General Amended.
503.1 General. Buildings and structures hereafter constructed, modified or relocated into or within wildland-urban interface areas shall meet the construction 18 September 22, 2025 Item 5
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 16 of 18 ends

requirements in accordance with Chapter 5. Materials required to be ignitionresistant building materials shall comply with the requirements of Section 503.2.

The vent requirements in Section 504 shall apply to all residential occupancies undergoing remodels, additions, or alterations.
504.10 Vents. Amended.

All residential buildings, including new construction, remodels, additions and alterations including re-roofs, shall be equipped with wildfire flame and emberresistant approved vents. Where provided, ventilation openings for enclosed attics, gable ends, ridge ends, under eaves and cornices, enclosed eave soffit spaces, enclosed rafter spaces formed where ceilings are applied directly to the underside of roof rafters, underfloor ventilation, foundations and crawl spaces, or any other opening intended to permit ventilation, either in a horizontal or vertical surface, shall be in accordance with Section 504.10.1 or Section 504.10.2 to resist building ignition from the intrusion of burning embers and flame through the ventilation openings.

SECTION TEN:

SECTION ELEVEN:

This Ordinance was introduced by the City Council on September 8, 2025.

SECTION TWELVE:

SECTION THIRTEEN:

SECTION FOURTEEN:
19 September 22, 2025 Item 5
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 17 of 18 ends

Upon adoption, the City Fire Marshal is hereby authorized and directed to file a copy of this Ordinance with the California Building Standards Commission consistent with Section 17958.7(a) of the California Health and Safety Code.

SECTION FIFTEEN:

Per State mandate, the 2025 Edition of the California Fire Code and the 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code do not go into effect until January 1, 2026. Upon adoption, the Ordinance will take effect and be in force 30 days from the date of City Council adoption (“Effective Date”), but the provisions of the Ordinance shall not be operative until January 1, 2026.

Page 18 of 18 ends

ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

AYES:

NOES:

RECUSE:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
21 September 22, 2025 Item 5
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Nestor Machado, Management Analyst
Karen Brindley, Planning and Community Development Director Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: September 22, 2025
SUBJECT: Resolution to Approve Encroachment Permit 25-068 to Retain Existing Unpermitted Retaining Walls and to Extend an Existing Wall within the Public Right-of-Way at 610 Hoska Drive
Applicants: Tim and Jayne Haines
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

It is requested that the City Council consider adoption of a Resolution (Attachment A) approving a Long-term Major Encroachment Permit (EP) 25-068 to retain existing unpermitted encroachments within the public right-of-way adjacent to 610 Hoska Drive.

BACKGROUND:

On September 8, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the Applicants’ request to retain the existing retaining wall and cement tree ring within the public right-ofway on the south side of the property located at 610 Hoska Drive. The EP request was initiated by a Code Enforcement violation filed against the Applicants.

After reviewing the submitted materials included with the EP packet, staff determined that two out of the six required findings to approve an EP pursuant to Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section 23.28.070(C) could not be made. Specifically, staff could not make finding 2 which related to the intended use of a City right-of-way or easement and finding 5 which relates to the EP not being a detriment of the interests of the general public.

Therefore, staff’s recommendation was to deny the request due to the inability to make the required findings pursuant to DMMC Section 23.28.070(C).

At the hearing, a majority of the City Council determined that all six findings could be made to approve EP25-068 and directed staff to return with a revised resolution approving the request. The Council proposed findings have been included in the revised resolution (Attachment A).
1 September 22, 2025 Item 6
City Council Agenda Report
EP25-068 (610 Hoska Drive)
September 22, 2025

Page 2 of 3 ends

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

Pursuant to DMMC Section 23.28.070, the City Council made the following findings for 2 and 5 in support of the approval of EP25-068 along with staff’s findings in support for 1, 3, 4, and 6:

Finding 1. That the issuance of the EP will not endanger public health, safety or welfare, or the surrounding property.

The issuance of the EP will not endanger public health, safety or welfare, or the surrounding property. The existing retaining wall has been in place for over a decade and helps retain the soil on the property as the property sits at a higher elevation than the street due to the topography of the area.

Finding 2. That the issuance of the EP will not unreasonably interfere with the intended use of a City Right-of-Way or Easement.

The property line is five feet from the street side curb and the existing retaining wall is approximately 39 inches away from the street side curb therefore, leaving enough clear space for pedestrians and passenger doors to fully swing open. This open space creates a safe area for pedestrians to utilize should there be any vehicular traffic impacts therefore, not unreasonably interfering with the intended use of a City right-of-way or easement.

Finding 3. That the issuance of the EP will not have an adverse impact on the welfare of the community or on the community’s appearance or aesthetics.

Other properties on Hoska Drive have similar type of walls or vegetation within the property frontage that it will not have an impact on the community’s appearance or aesthetics. As part of the EP submittal, the applicants will refinish the wall in stucco and add a cap to improve the appearance of the wall.

Finding 4. That the issuance of the EP will not cause an unnecessary change in the character of the community.

The issuance of the EP to retain the wall and extend the wall would not change the character of the community, because this wall has been in place for many years and is characteristic of other walls in the area.

Finding 5. That the issuance of the EP will not be to the detriment of the interests of the general public.

As mentioned above in finding 2, the wall is far enough from the street side curb that it creates an open space for pedestrians to safely exit vehicles without protruding into the 2 September 22, 2025 Item 6
City Council Agenda Report
EP25-068 (610 Hoska Drive)
September 22, 2025

Page 3 of 3 ends

street. In addition, the extension of the wall on the east side of the entry walkway will make the wall aesthetically appealing.

Finding 6. The proposed Encroachment will not convert significant area of public property to private use.

Retaining the existing wall and cement tree ring along with the extension of the wall on the east side of the entry walkway will not convert significant area of public property to private use. The wall encroaches approximately 21 inches into the right-of-way while still leaving 39 inches of open space.

The revised resolution approving this EP includes numerous conditions to protect the City’s interests. Conditions include revocation of the permit should the City determine there is a need for that portion of the right-of-way in the future. Moreover, the resolution includes a special condition that the applicant may only plant vegetation or ground cover at a height no more than “grass level” or no more than six inches for the portion of the right-of-way between the street side curb and the retaining wall to allow for vehicular passenger doors to freely swing open per City Council direction.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project has been analyzed and determined to be Categorically Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(Class 1 – Existing Facilities), in that the Project proposes retention of an existing retaining wall. Further, it has been determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a Categorical Exemption are applicable because the project will not generate any significant environmental impacts. (See: Guidelines Section 15300.2).

NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This is an operational item and is not included in the City Council’s list of Goals & Priorities.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Resolution Approving EP25-068
Attachment B – September 8, 2025, Agenda Report
3 September 22, 2025 Item 6
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL
MAR, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 25-
068 TO PERMIT AN EXISTING RETAINING WALL AND EXTEND

THE WALL WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AT 610 HOSKA DRIVE (APN: 300-251-
25-00) IN DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar (City) is the owner of the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, Tim and Jayne Haines (Applicant) have filed an application for an Encroachment Permit (EP25-068) seeking approval to permit an existing retaining wall and cement tree ring along with an extension of the retaining wall within the public right-ofway, adjacent to 610 Hoska Drive (Project); and WHEREAS, the property does not have an approved Encroachment Permit for the existing retaining wall and cement tree ring within the public right-of-way on the south side of the property; and
WHEREAS, Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 23.28 requires an Encroachment Permit (EP) for any private improvements within the public right-of-way; specifically, any improvements that extend at least 12 inches above the level of the sidewalk, roadway, or adjacent grade require City Council approval; and WHEREAS, DMMC Section 23.28.070 specifies that an Encroachment Permit may be approved or conditionally approved only if the City Council makes all of the findings set forth in Section 23.28.070(C) as noted in the below; and WHEREAS, in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is listed among the classes of projects determined to have less than significant adverse effect on the environment and, therefore, is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Class 1 – Existing Facilities in that the project proposes to permit an existing retaining wall and extension of the wall with minor associated improvements; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2025, the City Council of the City of Del Mar held a duly noticed public hearing to review the referenced entitlements, and at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, at the September 8, 2025, City Council meeting, the City Council approved the request to permit the existing encroachments and directed staff to return with an approval resolution for the encroachments; and
WHEREAS, oral and written evidence was submitted and considered to include without limitation:

Attachment A 4 September 22, 2025 Item 6
Resolution 2025-XX

Page 2 of 7 ends

a. Drawings developed by the Applicant;
b. Written information submitted with the application;
c. Agenda Report, dated September 8, 2025, and September 22, 2025, incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein; and d. Additional information submitted and testimony provided during the hearing on September 8, 2025.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar that Encroachment Permit EP25-068 is hereby approved based on the following findings in DMMC Chapter 23.28.070(C):

Findings:

1. The issuance of the EP will not endanger public health, safety or welfare, or the surrounding property. The existing retaining wall has been in place for over a decade and helps retain the soil on the property as the property sits at a higher elevation than the street due to the topography of the area.

2. The property line is five feet from the street side curb and the existing retaining wall is approximately 39 inches away from the street side curb therefore, leaving enough clear space for pedestrians and passenger doors to fully swing open. This open space creates a safe area for pedestrians to utilize should there be any vehicular traffic impacts therefore, not unreasonably interfering with the intended use of a City right-of-way or easement.

3. Other properties on Hoska Drive have similar type of walls or vegetation within the property frontage that it will not have an impact on the community’s appearance or aesthetics. As part of the EP submittal, the applicants will refinish the wall in stucco and add a cap to improve the appearance of the wall.

4. The issuance of the EP to retain the wall and extend the wall would not change the character of the community, because this wall has been in place for many years and is characteristic of other walls in the area.

5. As mentioned above in finding 2, the wall is far enough from the street side curb that it creates an open space for pedestrians to safely exit vehicles without protruding into the street. In addition, the extension of the wall on the east side of the entry walkway will make the wall aesthetically appealing.

6. Retaining the existing wall and cement tree ring along with the extension of the wall on the east side of the entry walkway will not convert significant area of public property to private use. The wall encroaches approximately 21 inches into the right-of-way while still leaving 39 inches of open space.

Attachment A 5 September 22, 2025 Item 6
Resolution 2025-XX

Page 3 of 7 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council that approval of EP25-068 shall be subject to the following conditions:

General Encroachment Conditions:

GEP-2 [EP – Indemnification]
By accepting this permit and implementing the development authorized herein, the applicant agrees to indemnify, defend and save the City of Del Mar, its authorized agents, officers, representatives and employees harmless from and against any and all penalties, liabilities, annoyances, or loss resulting from claims or court action and arising out of any accident, loss or damage to persons or property happening or occurring as a proximate result of any work undertaken under the permit granted pursuant to the application or by reason of the permittee's installation, operation, maintenance or removal of the encroachment.

GEP-3 [EP - Removal of improvements]
The applicant agrees that if any structure, tank, pipe, conduit, duct, tunnel, or other development for which this permit is issued is, at any point in the future, determined by the City to interfere with the use, repair or improvement of the subject right-of-way, the applicant or his or her successors or assigns, shall remove the development within ten (10) days after the receipt of a written notice from Public Works to do so.

The removal shall be accomplished at the expense of the applicant or his or her successors or assigns and shall be removed or relocated to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.

A) If an unknown underground facility is encountered, work shall cease immediately, and both the City Engineer’s office, Public Works and the utility believed to own the facility shall be notified. Work shall not proceed until permission is granted by the City Engineer’s office and a solution to the underground obstruction is resolved by the Engineer of Work.

GEP-4 [EP - Compliance with Conditions]
The applicant hereby agrees to do all work and otherwise comply with the terms and conditions of this permit, and all applicable rules and regulations of the City of Del Mar and/or other public agency.

GEP-5 [EP - Revocation of permit due to noncompliance with conditions] This permit may be revoked by the City if noncompliance is noted to the applicant and satisfactory action is not taken by the applicant or his/her agents to achieve compliance within twenty-four (24) hours of notice.

GEP-7 [EP - Permit Expiration/Potential for Permit Extension] This permit and the authorization for use/work within a City right-of-way herein granted shall expire one year from the date of approval, on September 22, 2026.

The permittee may request a single Extension of Time of an approved Encroachment Permit by submitting a written request to the City Manager setting forth the reason Attachment A 6 September 22, 2025 Item 6
Resolution 2025-XX

Page 4 of 7 ends

that substantial work on the permit cannot be commenced by the scheduled expiration date. The City Manager shall grant the extension unless he/she determines that there has been a change in circumstances since the time of the original grant of the permit which would create an inconsistency between the proposed encroachment and the provisions of DMMC Chapter 23.28. No extension shall be granted for a period greater than one (1) year.

GEP-9 [EP - Compliance with CAL-OSHA]
The permittee shall obey and enforce all safety orders, rules, regulations, and recommendations of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California, CAL-OSHA, applicable to the work and shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes, and regulations. Any omission on the part of the City Engineer’s office to specify protective measures or devices in the Encroachment Permit shall not excuse the permittee from complying with all applicable requirements of law.

GEP-10[EP - Timely Performance of Work]
If any part of the work performed under an Encroachment Permit is not completed within the period indicated in either the submitted application materials or the conditions of approval of the Encroachment Permit, the City may notify the person performing the work, in writing, to complete the work within forty-eight (48) hours thereafter, legal holidays excepted. If the work is not completed within this time period, the Public Works shall have full power to perform the work, including such measures as will restore the disturbed area to a safe and passable condition until the work can be completed. The cost thereof, including any inspection and administrative overhead costs incurred by City, shall be assessed against the permittee.

GEP-11[EP - Compliance with City Codes and Permit Conditions] Any person violating any provisions of or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Permit or of DMMC Chapter 23.28 shall be subject to the enforcement provisions set forth in DMMC Chapters 1.08 and 30.98.

GEP-12[EP - Change of Permit Conditions at Direction of the City] The City retains the right to change conditions of this Permit granted and order the relocation or adjustment of lines, manholes, fixtures, and apparatus hereby allowed to be installed, whenever, in the opinion of the City, this becomes necessary; and desirable. In the event that such an order is made, all changes required pursuant thereto shall be made at the sole expense of the Permittee.

GEP-15[EP - No Transfer in Property Interest]
The granting of an encroachment permit pursuant to this chapter shall not constitute the transfer or relinquishment of any ownership or interest held by the City over the public right-of-way, nor shall such permit confer any vested or proprietary rights upon the holder of the permit beyond the right to utilize the encroachment area in the manner authorized by the permit and subject to all of the conditions set forth herein.

Attachment A 7 September 22, 2025 Item 6
Resolution 2025-XX

Page 5 of 7 ends

GEP-17[EP - Improvements Subject to Compliance with ADA Accessibility Requirements] The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that all improvements are implemented in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). Information about requirements for complying with ADA requirements can be gained from the following website: http://www.accessboard.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm GEP-20[EP – Cleanup, Backfilling and Compaction]
Cleanup, backfilling, and Compaction shall be as follows:
a) Cleanup After Completion - Immediately after completion of the work, the permittee shall cleanup and remove all materials, earth and debris of any kind.

If the permittee fails to do so within 24 hours after having been notified to do so by the City, the work may be done by the city and the permittee charged the costs of such work. When a pole, guy-stub or similar timber is removed and not replaces, the entire length thereof shall be removed from the ground and the hole backfilled and compacted.
b) Backfilling and compaction – Backfilling and compaction of an excavation of an evacuation shall be in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Sections 301 and 306), as well as any special standards established by the City. Backfilling shall be completed before the end of the workday. No open trenches shall be left after normal working hours. c) Restoration of right-of-way - upon completion of the encroachment work authorized by a permit, the permittee shall restore the right-of-way by replacing, repairing or rebuilding it in accordance with the specifications or any specific requirements, but not less than to its original condition before the encroachment work was commences. The permittee shall remove all obstructions, materials, and debris upon the right-of-way and shall do any other work necessary to restore the right-of-way to a safe and usable condition, as directed by the City. When the excavation occurs within an area already paved, the city may make the necessary restoration. The permittee can be notified or can respond to notification; the City may make the necessary restoration. The permittee shall reimburse the City in accordance with the costs of such work.

All work shall be in accordance with City standards and Public work Standard Specifications for Construction (Green Book Section 302 and 306.).

GEP-22[EP – Construction Staging Area]
Proposed locations of construction staging areas shall be approved by the City.

Any construction staging area proposed outside of the public right-of-way shall be disallowed unless the Permittee has secured the prior written approval of the owner.

Attachment A 8 September 22, 2025 Item 6
Resolution 2025-XX

Page 6 of 7 ends

Public Works Conditions:

PW-1 [Notification prior to and after Completion of Work] The applicant agrees to notify the Public Works representative at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance of time when work authorized in this permit will be started.

Applicant shall state the EP number, original date of approval and a short description of the work. Additionally, upon completion of the work, the applicant agrees to immediately notify the Public Works representative of such completion.

Any improvement or modification of the right-of-way shall be subject to inspection and approval of work from the Public Works representative. The permittee shall be responsible for contacting Guillermo Landoni with MBI at [email protected].

PW-17[Public Works Inspection]
Permittee shall schedule inspections with the Public Works, through MBI at [email protected] at least 24 hours prior to need as follows:
a. Sidewalk, Driveway, Curb and Gutter and other Concrete Work Pre-pour and Final b. Street Excavation T-Cut and Final
c. Sewer Lateral Capping during Demolition and New Lateral Connection to Main d. Water- Cross Connection Inspection prior to final.
e. All Other Encroachment Activity Final
Special Conditions:

SP-1 [Encroachment Permit Revocation]
At the City’s discretion, the Encroachment Permit may be revoked at any time and the property owner will be required to remove the private improvement from the City right-of-way.

SP-2 [Building Permit]
The Applicant is required to obtain a Building Permit prior to the installation of the extension of the retaining wall.

SP-3 [Vegetation within the Public Right-of-Way]
Per City Council direction, the Applicant may only plant vegetation or ground cover at a height no more than “grass level” or no more than six inches in the area within the public right-of-way between the existing retaining wall and street side curb to ensure clearance for vehicular doors to freely swing open.

SP-4 [Administrative Design Review Permit]
The Applicant is required to obtain an Administrative Design Review (ADR) permit for the existing retaining wall and extension of the wall within the public right-ofway.

Attachment A 9 September 22, 2025 Item 6
Resolution 2025-XX

Page 7 of 7 ends

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, State of California, at a Regular Meeting held on the 22nd day of September 2025. ____________________________
Terry Gaasterland, Mayor
City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CITY OF DEL MAR
I, Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2025-XX, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 22nd day of September 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

RECUSE:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
Attachment A 10 September 22, 2025 Item 6
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Nestor Machado, Management Analyst
Karen Brindley, Planning and Community Development Director Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: September 8, 2025
SUBJECT: Encroachment Permit 25-068 to Retain Existing Unpermitted Retaining Walls and to Extend an Existing Wall within the Public Right-of-Way at 610 Hoska Drive
Applicants: Tim and Jayne Haines
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) denying a Long-term Major Encroachment Permit (EP) 25-068 to retain an existing unpermitted retaining wall within the public right-of-way based on non-compliance with the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) and City Council Policy 110 (Private Encroachments into City Rights-of-Way).

BACKGROUND:

On June 11, 2025, Code Enforcement Case No. CE25-106 was opened due to the construction of improvements on the property located at 610 Hoska Drive without required City permits. Through the review of that case, staff observed that an existing retaining wall on the south side of the property encroaches approximately 21 inches into the public right-of-way (ROW) with no record that the encroachment has been authorized by the City. To remedy the code violation and come into compliance, the Applicant has applied for an EP to retain the existing unpermitted wall and the applicable permits for the associated proposed improvements, or remove the unpermitted wall from the public rightof-way. 610 Hoska Drive has a single unit residence with driveway access from Hoska Drive, which is an improved City street with curbs. The surrounding properties are also developed with single-unit homes. This portion of Hoska Drive has a gradual downhill slope from the east to the west, and the dedicated right-of-way is 40 feet. However, the actual street is 30 feet wide since the north and south side of Hoska Drive has curbs. 1 September 8, 2025 Item 6 Attachment B 11 September 22, 2025 Item 6 City Council Agenda Report
EP25-068 (610 Hoska Drive)
September 8, 2025

Page 2 of 4 ends

The Applicant submitted an EP application to retain the unpermitted wall and authorize the construction of a 4-foot-long extension of a wall on the east side of the entry walkway extending to the driveway apron. As shown in the drawings in Attachment B, the concrete wall on the west side of the entry walkway extends approximately 21 inches into the rightof-way and runs for approximately 22 feet along Hoska Drive. This wall varies from 15 inches to 33 inches in height due to the gradual slope of the right-of-way. In addition, it appears that this wall was modified throughout the construction process without obtaining permits. Photographs of the existing wall are included as Attachment C and a vicinity map depicting where the site is located is included as Attachment D.

The wall on the east side of the entry walkway is approximately 10 feet in length and extends approximately 21 inches into the right-of-way. This wall varies from 9 inches to 10 inches in height due to the gradual slope of the right-of-way. As part of the EP submittal, the Applicant requested to extend this wall by another 4 feet for continuity with the east wall. Previously, the wall along Hoska Drive had shrubs and gravel in front of it as shown in the February 2025 street view image in Attachment C; however, those were removed as part of the unpermitted improvements occurring at the property. Additionally, near the southwest corner of the property is an existing cement tree ring wall that is also unpermitted. The applicant is also requesting refinishing the existing concrete wall by adding a concrete cap and stucco finish.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

In accordance with DMMC §23.28.020, a Long-term Major EP is defined as any improvement designed to or having a permanent appearance and intended for use for a period of 365 days or more and includes, but is not limited to, structures or portions thereof, balconies, cornices and other architectural projections, awnings, below grade vaults, earth-retaining structures extending 12-inches or more in height above the adjacent grade, planter boxes, ramps, fences or walls, and curbs extending 12-inches or more in height above the adjacent grade.

Required Findings
Pursuant to DMMC §23.28.070, there are six (6) required findings to approve a Longterm Major EP that generally relate to public safety, intended use of the right-of-way, community character, aesthetics, and conversion of public land for private use. An EP shall only be approved if the City Council can make all six findings:

Finding 1: That the issuance of the EP will not endanger public health, safety or welfare, or the surrounding property.

Finding 2: That the issuance of the EP will not unreasonably interfere with the intended use of a City Right-of-Way or Easement.

Finding 3: That the issuance of the EP will not have an adverse impact on the welfare of the community or on the community’s appearance or aesthetics. 2 September 8, 2025 Item 6 Attachment B 12 September 22, 2025 Item 6 City Council Agenda Report
EP25-068 (610 Hoska Drive)
September 8, 2025

Page 3 of 4 ends

Finding 4: That the issuance of the EP will not cause an unnecessary change in the character of the community.

Finding 5: That the issuance of the EP will not be to the detriment of the interests of the general public.

Finding 6: The proposed Encroachment will not convert significant area of public property to private use.

Staff has determined that findings 1, 3, 4, and 6 cited above could be made to allow the existing encroachments. However, retaining the existing encroachments and proposing the extension of the wall on the east side of the entry walkway will unreasonably interfere with the intended use of the City right-of-way and be a detriment of the interests of the general public. It is standard City practice to require a minimum five (5) foot clearance from the edge of the paved street and/or curb (if one exists) to allow for parked vehicles to have room to open passenger side doors and for pedestrians to have safe area to exit the paved street when needed to avoid passing vehicles. In this scenario, the wall encroaches 21 inches into the right-of-way leaving approximately 39 inches of “clear” area from the back of curb. In addition, should the City want to widen the street in the future, the encroaching wall would be a limiting factor. For these reasons, findings 2 and 5 cannot be made.

Additionally, allowing the existing modified wall to remain, extending the wall on the east side of the entry walkway, and retaining the tree ring wall would be inconsistent with City Council Policy 110 (Attachment E), which states “Encroachments that would result in an impression or appearance that the encroached upon area is owned by or reserved solely for the private use of the adjacent property will not be authorized unless the City Council makes a finding that the proposed encroachment will result in a public benefit to the Community.” The applicant has not identified any public benefits that would result in allowing the wall encroachment in the public right-of-way.

Furthermore, while the wall acts as a retaining wall since the front yard sits at a slightly higher elevation than the street, the wall can be relocated on the Applicant’s property to retain the soil and provide the dedicated width of the right-of-way.

Given the proposed project’s non-compliance with the DMMC and City Council Policy 110, staff recommends that the EP application be denied.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact or action to be taken by the Council related to this agenda item, as this is a private development proposal. All fees associated with entitlement processing are paid for by the Applicant.
3 September 8, 2025 Item 6 Attachment B 13 September 22, 2025 Item 6 City Council Agenda Report
EP25-068 (610 Hoska Drive)
September 8, 2025

Page 4 of 4 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

In accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council’s action to reject or disapprove a project is statutorily exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15270(a). Therefore, environmental review would not be required for the proposed encroachment permit.

NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This is an operational item and is not included in the City Council’s list of Goals & Priorities.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Resolution Denying EP25-068
Attachment B – Drawings Plan
Attachment C – Photographs of Encroachments
Attachment D – Vicinity Map
Attachment E – City Council Policy 110
4 September 8, 2025 Item 6 Attachment B 14 September 22, 2025 Item 6 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL
MAR, CALIFORNIA, DENYING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 25-068

REQUESTING TO RETAIN AN EXISTING RETAINING WALLS

AND AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT AN EXTENSION OF

THESE WALLS INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AT 610 HOSKA DRIVE (APN:
300-251-25-00) IN DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar (City) is the owner of the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, Tim and Jayne Haines (Applicant) have filed an application for an Encroachment Permit (EP25-068) seeking approval to retain existing walls and construct an extension to a wall located within the public right-of-way (Project); and WHEREAS, the property does not have an approved Encroachment Permit for the existing retaining wall within the right-of-way on the south side of the property; and WHEREAS, Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 23.28 requires an Encroachment Permit (EP) for any private improvements within the public right-of-way; specifically, any improvements that extend at least 12 inches above the level of the sidewalk, roadway, or adjacent grade require City Council approval; and WHEREAS, DMMC Section 23.28.070 specifies that an Encroachment Permit may be approved or conditionally approved only if the City Council makes all the findings set forth in Section 23.28.070(C) as noted in the below; and
WHEREAS, City Council Policy 110-Private Encroachments into City Rights-of-Way memorializes the City Council’s position on which types of private encroachments are compatible with and enhance the public areas that City rights-of way represent and, conversely, which types of encroachments are inappropriate because they would change the character and public perception of a right-of-way area to one of being under private ownership and/or benefit rather than being a public space; and WHEREAS, in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council’s action to reject or disapprove a project is statutorily exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15270(a).

Therefore, environmental review would not be required; and WHEREAS, on September 8, 2025, the City Council of the City of Del Mar held a duly noticed public hearing to review the referenced entitlements, and at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, oral and written evidence was submitted and considered to include without limitation:
a. Drawings developed by the Applicant;
Attachment A 5 September 8, 2025 Item 6 Attachment B 15 September 22, 2025 Item 6 Resolution 2025-XX

Page 2 of 3 ends

b. Written information submitted with the application;
c. Agenda Report, dated September 8, 2025, incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein; and
d. Additional information submitted and testimony provided during the hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar that Encroachment Permit EP25-068 is hereby denied based on the following findings in DMMC Section 23.28.070 (C):

1. DMMC Section 23.28.070(C) requires the City Council to make all six findings in this section, which include 23.28.070(C)(2), “That the issuance of the EP will not unreasonably interfere with the intended use of a City Right-of-Way or Easement”, and 23.28.070(C)(5), “That the issuance of the EP will not be to the detriment of the interests of the general public.” Retaining the existing encroachments and proposing the extension of the easterly wall will unreasonably interfere with the intended use of the City right-of-way and be a detriment of the interests of the general public. For City streets that have streetside curbs, the City’s standard practice is to ensure there is a minimum five (5) foot clearance to allow for parked vehicles to have room to open passenger side doors. In this scenario, the wall encroaches 21 inches into the right-of-way therefore, only leaving approximately 39 inches from the curb. In addition, should the City want to widen the street in the future, the encroaching wall would be a limiting factor.

2. Additionally, retaining the existing wall and extending the wall on the east side of the entry walkway would be inconsistent with City Council Policy 110, which states “Encroachments that would result in an impression or appearance that the encroached upon area is owned by or reserved solely for the private use of the adjacent property will not be authorized unless the City Council makes a finding that the proposed encroachment will result in a public benefit to the Community.”

3. The applicant has not identified any public benefits that would result by allowing the wall to be encroached in the public right-of-way. Furthermore, while the wall acts as a retaining wall since the front yard sits at a slightly higher elevation than the street, the wall can be pushed back to within the applicant’s property to retain the soil and provide the dedicated width of the right-of-way.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that EP25- 068 is denied.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, State of California, at a Regular Meeting held on the 8th day of September 2025. ____________________________
Terry Gaasterland, Mayor
City of Del Mar
Attachment A 6 September 8, 2025 Item 6 Attachment B 16 September 22, 2025 Item 6 Resolution 2025-XX

Page 3 of 3 ends

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Leslie E. Devaney, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

AYES:

NOES:

RECUSE:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
Attachment A 7 September 8, 2025 Item 6 Attachment B 17 September 22, 2025 Item 6 Attachment B 8 September 8, 2025 Item 6 Attachment B 18 September 22, 2025 Item 6 33”
26”
39”
Propose to add 4’ to wall
Attachment C 9 September 8, 2025 Item 6 Attachment B 19 September 22, 2025 Item 6 39” from wall to curb
February 2025 street view
depicting previous condition
Attachment C 10 September 8, 2025 Item 6 Attachment B 20 September 22, 2025 Item 6 610 Hoska Dr. Vicinity Map
Attachment D 11 September 8, 2025 Item 6 Attachment B 21 September 22, 2025 Item 6

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
110 PRIVATE ENCROACHMENTS INTO CITY RIGHTSOF-WAY
DATE ADOPTED: 10/19/15
BY RESOLUTION: 2015-67
PAGES: 1 OF 2
POLICY
This policy memorializes the City Council’s position on which types of private encroachments are compatible with and enhance the public areas that City rights-of-way represent and, conversely, which types of encroachments are inappropriate because they would change the character and perception of a right-of-way area to one of being under private ownership and/or benefit rather than being a public space.

Appropriate Uses of City Rights-of-Way or Easements
There are numerous circumstances in Del Mar where an improved (paved) section of a City right-of-way is narrower that the width of the right-of-way itself. This results in an area of unimproved right-of-way adjacent to private property. In many cases, the owner of the adjacent property, or designee, proposes to install landscaping and other landscape-related improvements in the unimproved portion of the right-of-way. This has the beneficial effect of beautifying the area adjacent to the paved roadway, without the City having to bear the costs for installing or maintaining the improvements. These are generally considered to be an appropriate use of a right-of-way but still subject to review under the Encroachment Permit process.

There are also circumstances where an encroachment is proposed as a means to provide a driveway or entry path across the unimproved right-of-way between the paved section of the right-of-way and the adjacent private property. These too are deemed an appropriate and justifiable use of a City right-of-way or easement. Such proposals are generally approved, unless it is determined that the proposed encroachment would:

1. Present a public health or safety hazard, such as:
a) Creating a trip hazard or other impediment to pedestrians b) Creating an unsafe line of sight for pedestrians or motorists c) Interfering with or not accommodating safe pedestrian passage (retention/provision of a continuous, minimum five-foot-wide “safe harbor” along the edge of the paved roadway is the standard applied by the City);

2. Result in a loss of on-street public parking;

3. Be inconsistent with the City’s planned use for the area;

4. Result in a wholesale change in appearance or use of the area, to the detriment of the community;

5. Interfere with development or use on an adjacent public or private property;

6. Result in a permanent feature (e.g., stone wall or reinforced structure) that would be difficult to remove if the City exercises its right to modify the use of the area subject to the Encroachment Permit
Attachment E 12 September 8, 2025 Item 6 Attachment B 22 September 22, 2025 Item 6

CITY OF DEL MAR

CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
110 PRIVATE ENCROACHMENTS INTO CITY RIGHTSOF-WAY
DATE ADOPTED: 10/19/15
BY RESOLUTION: 2015-67
PAGES: 2 OF 2
Inappropriate Proposals for Use of a Right-of-Way or Easement It is the City’s policy that proposals for development encroachments that would result in an impression or appearance that the encroached upon area is owned by or reserved solely for the private use of the adjacent property will not be authorized unless the City Council makes a finding that the proposed encroachment will result in a public benefit to the community.

Examples of such inappropriate encroachments include: fences, hedges, or vegetation that would create the impression that the “walled-off” area is private vs. public property; and pools, spa or other amenities that would be used primarily for the benefit of the adjacent property, rather than for the public at large.

Attachment E 13 September 8, 2025 Item 6 Attachment B 23 September 22, 2025 Item 6 City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Karen Brindley, Planning and Community Development Director Matt Bator, Principal Planner
Ralph Hicks, Assistant City Attorney
Via: Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: September 22, 2025
SUBJECT: Initial Consideration of Courtesy Appeal Per DMMC 1.12.020 of Planning Director’s Determination- Incomplete Application Status (CDP23-008) Seaside Ridge Housing Development (Applicant: Carol Lazier) Proposed 259 Multi-Unit Residential Development and Density Bonus Request at 929 Border (APNs: 298-241-06, 298-241-07, and 299-030-14) REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning and Community Development Director’s determination that the Lazier development application (CDP23- 008) status is incomplete.

BACKGROUND:

This Initial Consideration action by the City Council is in response to a submitted request for appeal that was filed after a multi-year permit review process that included a legal challenge filed with the court by the Applicant as identified in background summary below.

Applicant: Carol Lazier
Proposed Project: Coastal Development Permit (CDP23-008) - Proposed Seaside Ridge Housing Development project to build a 259-unit multiple dwelling unit residential development project, including a density bonus request, on vacant property that is currently designed for very low-density residential development.

Permit Application Status: Incomplete Application
Site Address: 929 Border Avenue (APNs: 298-241-06, 298-241-07, and 299-030-14) Existing Land Use Designation: Very Low Density Residential (R1-40) Existing Zoning Designation: Very Low Density Residential (R1-40) Overlay Zones: Coastal Bluff Overlay and Bluff, Slope, and Canyon Overlay, and Lagoon Overlay
Preliminary Development Application (PDA22-001): On October 4, 2022, a “Preliminary Development Application” (PDA22-001) was filed with the City in accordance with California Senate Bill SB-330 and Government Code Section 656941.1. The 1 September 22, 2025 Item 7
City Council Agenda Report
Initial Consideration of Courtesy Appeal Per DMMC 1.12.020 Seaside Ridge Housing Development
September 22, 2025

Page 2 of 12 ends

application was “deemed filed” upon receipt of submittal fees on October 17, 2022.

However, letter from the City to the Applicant regarding the “deemed filed” application explained that the project was not consistent with the current zoning and density allowances for the property located at 929 Border Avenue, that the City’s adopted Housing Element identifies a sufficient inventory of sites with correct zoning and capacity to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation without the need to rezone properties, and that any future submittal for development entitlements for the proposed project would need to include the following applications and associated fees and/or deposits:
• General (Community) Plan Amendment
• Rezone Application
• Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA)
• Environmental Assessment Application
• Design Review Permit Application
• Conditional Use Permit Application
• Coastal Development Application
• Land Conservation Permit Application
• Boundary Adjustment Application
• Long-Term Major Encroachment Permit
• Tree Removal Permit Application
Coastal Development Permit Application (CDP23-008): On March 30, 2023, a Coastal Development Permit application and associated materials for the 259-unit Seaside Ridge housing development project was filed with the City. The application was filed within the required 180-day time period following the City's formal acceptance of the Preliminary Development Application (PDA22-001).

Planning and Community Development Department staff, in consultation with the City Attorney, reviewed the subject Application and its proposed entitlement materials, the accompanying legal supporting memorandum, and all technical studies within the statutory 30-day period required by State law. The result of staff’s review was a determination by the Planning and Community Development Director (Director) on April 27, 2023, that the application submittal was “Incomplete” and contrary to the Applicant’s legal representations was not supported by law, and that submittal each of the above-cited applications would be required before the proposed project could be deemed complete.

Following the City’s initial determination of “incompleteness,” the Applicant resubmitted project materials and legal arguments three more times. With each resubmittal, staff timely reviewed the materials provided within 30-days, and each time it was determined that the Applicant had not provided the required materials and funds in order for the City to deem the project “Complete.” The last and final review of a responsive resubmittal 2 September 22, 2025 Item 7
City Council Agenda Report
Initial Consideration of Courtesy Appeal Per DMMC 1.12.020 Seaside Ridge Housing Development
September 22, 2025

Page 3 of 12 ends

resulted in a fourth determination of “incompleteness” by the Director made on December 20, 2023.

On March 1, 2024, the Applicant’s legal counsel filed a petition for writ of mandate with the Court to compel the City to deem the development application “Complete.” A writ of mandate is an expedited court proceeding that allows challenges to an agency’s approval or denial of a project or other action. However, the petition was dismissed by the Court on June 13, 2025, because the Applicant failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, such as an Appeal of the “incompleteness” determination to the City Council. An appeal of the Director’s determination would have been due within 10 working days of the December 20, 2023, determination.

APPEAL:

On July 31, 2025, the legal counsel for the Applicant filed an appeal with the City, requesting that the City Council conduct a public hearing and overturn the Planning and Community Development Director’s determination that the Seaside Ridge Project Application was, and remains, “incomplete (Attachment A). While the Applicant did not file a timely appeal of the Director’s incompleteness determination, the City is proceeding with the submitted appeal as a courtesy to the Applicant, for the purpose of allowing the Council to better understand the project and the Applicant’s legal position. It will also provide the public the opportunity to better understand the components of the project and application processing history.

It should be noted that, while the Applicant’s legal counsel submitted a letter to the City on July 10, 2025 (Attachment B), requesting City staff “to rescind its prior incompleteness determination and find the application complete,” that did not constitute a formal planning application resubmittal. The City Attorney’s Office provided a response on July 18, 2025 (Attachment C), which the Applicant has incorrectly used as the basis for this hearing.

CDP23-008 was last deemed Incomplete on December 20, 2023, and as previously noted, no responsive documents have been submitted by the Applicant since that time.

Seaside Ridge is inconsistent with the City’s Community Plan (General Plan), Coastal Commission-certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), and Zoning standards. The Applicant asserts that the “Builders Remedy” applies to this project. The Builder’s Remedy is a provision of California Government Code Section 65589.5 that allows developers to bypass local zoning regulations and General (Community) Plan designations when a city’s Housing Element is out of compliance with State law and process development projects ministerially, or “by-right.” As further explained below, the Builder’s Remedy does not apply for this project. Additionally, the Applicant asserts that because the project site is listed as a “contingency” housing site in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element, the City was obligated under State law to rezone the site through an administrative process without any public input or Council action. To view the 6th Cycle Housing Element, see https://www.delmar.ca.us/772/Housing-Element-Update-6th-Cycle-Housing. 3 September 22, 2025 Item 7
City Council Agenda Report
Initial Consideration of Courtesy Appeal Per DMMC 1.12.020 Seaside Ridge Housing Development
September 22, 2025

Page 4 of 12 ends

STAFF’S RESPONSE TO THE APPEAL:

The following analysis provides the background information and detailed explanations of why the Seaside Ridge development submittal (CDP23-008) was determined to be incomplete on four occasions, the latest being on December 20, 2023, and remains in an incomplete status.

A. Does Not Meet the Grounds for Appeal
In order for the Council to determine if there are grounds for an appeal, it must first determine if one of the four grounds for appeal listed in the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) has been met. DMMC Section 1.12.020 identifies the following four circumstances as grounds for appeal to support a request to set the item for de novo hearing:

1. Factual Error: That the statements or evidence the Director relied on were inaccurate;

2. New information: That new information is available to the Applicant that was not available through reasonable efforts or due diligence at the time of the Director’s decision;

3. Findings are not supported: That the decision of incompleteness is not supported by the information provided to the City (Planning Department); or

4. Conflicts: That the Director’s determination of incompleteness is in conflict with applicable land use plans, a City policy or the Municipal Code.

The Applicant relies on grounds #1 through #4 to form an argument for an appeal.

Regarding grounds #1, #3, and #4, the Applicant asserts that the determination of incompleteness is not supported by State housing laws, specifically those related to the State’s Housing Accountability Act (HAA).

The Applicant asserts that the “Builder’s Remedy” applies and that the City had an affirmative obligation to rezone the Applicant property. However, it is the City’s position that the Builder’s Remedy does not apply because: 1) the project grew by 28% between the time of their preliminary application and their formal application submittal and the Applicant was notified of the resulting loss of PDA vesting rights per the HAA in writing; and 2) the City had no affirmative obligation to rezone a the Applicant’s North Bluff property because it was only listed as a “contingency” site in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element. These issues are discussed further below.

In further review of #4, staff notes that the Applicant is appealing on grounds that the Director’s determination conflicts with land use plans, a City policy or the Municipal Code.

However, the Applicant’s arguments in Section D of the Appeal Letter (pages 9 &10), cite non-compliance with State law, not local plans, policies or Codes as is the intent of that Section of DMMC 1.12. Therefore, no evidence is provided that the Director’s 4 September 22, 2025 Item 7
City Council Agenda Report
Initial Consideration of Courtesy Appeal Per DMMC 1.12.020 Seaside Ridge Housing Development
September 22, 2025

Page 5 of 12 ends

determination conflicts with the City’s Community Plan, Local Coastal Program, or any other City land use plans, policies, or provisions of the Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC).

As to item #2, the Applicant asserts that a resolution passed by the City in regard to RHNA allocations is new information because the Fairgrounds Board may consider the passing of such resolution as grounds to abandon low-income housing project on the Fairground’s property. However, the City’s concerns regarding the fairness of the RHNA process and adoption of a separate and unrelated resolution in support of a State ballot initiative to restore local control is tangential and unrelated to this matter. As such, it has no direct bearing on the completeness determination of the Seaside Ridge development application.

The Applicant’s appeal also claims that the City’s Incomplete “… determination relies on an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement related to housing development on the Fairgrounds site to disclaim the City’s obligations under State law to rezone the project site…” This statement is inaccurate and the City’s incomplete application determinations do not reference the Fairgrounds.

In sum the Applicant argues the following:
• The City violated State law by not administratively rezoning the north bluff property; • The City has no authority to make any discretionary decisions related to the Seaside Ridge project;
• The City has no authority to require mitigation for the significant environmental impacts of the project; and
• The City cannot impose the development standards and requirements of the City’s certified LCP onto the Seaside Ridge project, even though these same development standards and requirements are applicable to all submitted permit applications for coastal development, including proposed housing development subject to staff level approval of an administrative Coastal Development Permit (i.e., Accessory Dwelling Units).

B. Applicant’s Refusal to Submit Required Application Materials The Applicant’s refusal to submit application materials rests on two legal premises:
1) The Builders Remedy applies, leaving the City with no discretionary approval rights; and
5 September 22, 2025 Item 7
City Council Agenda Report
Initial Consideration of Courtesy Appeal Per DMMC 1.12.020 Seaside Ridge Housing Development
September 22, 2025

Page 6 of 12 ends

2) The City was compelled by State housing laws to rezone the Seaside Ridge project site (Lazier property) because it was a “candidate site” in the City’s Housing Element.

As provided by State Codes, the Director provided the Applicant timely status determination letters deeming CDP23-008 “incomplete” on the following dates:
• April 27, 2023
• June 30, 2023
• September 26, 2023
• December 20, 2023
In each of these determinations (Attachments D - G) the Director asked that the Applicant provide the following:

1. Rezone Application - Not Submitted
The project site currently has zoning designations of: Very Low Density – Residential (R1- 40); Coastal Bluff Overlay; Bluff, Slope, and Canyon Overlay; and Beach Overlay. In summary, the existing zoning designations allow very low density, single-unit residential development with minimum lot sizes of 40,000 square feet. Applicable Overlay Zone designations require the protection of coastal resources in accordance with the certified Local Coastal Program. To propose multi-unit residential development on the project site, the zoning must be changed to allow consideration of the proposal.

The Applicant has argued that the north bluff property where Seaside Ridge is proposed should have been rezoned, that a rezone of the property was required under State housing law because the site is listed in the City’s Housing Element, and that the rezone of the property should have been completed administratively for processing as a “by right” action without need for City Council or Coastal Commission consideration.

These arguments by the Applicant are unfounded for many reasons, including:
• A rezone is a legislative action that cannot be processed administratively regardless of whether a project is considered “by-right” per State Housing law. • While the subject parcels are not eligible for “by right” housing development, the City has previous experience processing of a required rezone and Local Coastal Program Amendment for a “by right” affordable housing development project during the 5th Cycle Housing Element. In that case, the rezone action and associated Local Coastal Program Amendment were subject to receipt of a Planning Commission recommendation, City Council adoption, and Coastal Commission certification in order to take effect.
6 September 22, 2025 Item 7
City Council Agenda Report
Initial Consideration of Courtesy Appeal Per DMMC 1.12.020 Seaside Ridge Housing Development
September 22, 2025

Page 7 of 12 ends

• The required deposit of $10,925 for the required rezone action has not been paid by the Applicant.

2. Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) - Not Submitted As noted above, rezone actions also necessitate processing of an LCPA to amend the land use designation and zoning designation for the subject property in the certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). This means any rezone and amendment to the land use and zoning designations of the north bluff property would also require processing of an LCP Amendment.

The proposed Seaside Ridge project is wholly inconsistent with the density, heights, setbacks, and many other elements specified in the City’s Coastal Commission-certified LCP and the DMMC. Yet, the Applicant believes that the City had an affirmative obligation to rezone the property despite it only being included as a “contingency site” in the 6th Cycle Housing Element. While the City timely completed each of its required rezone actions per specified program actions in the Housing Element, the Applicant contends that all sites (including all primary sites relied upon to meet RHNA and contingency sites identified in Housing Element Program 1E) should have been rezoned by the City.

However, there is no State housing law that requires backup contingency housing sites to be treated like the primary sites relied upon to meet RHNA. As stated in the City’s Housing Element and consistent with State Housing law, the backup contingency sites only become applicable when necessary to ensure no net loss of adequate sites to meet RHNA.

3. General Plan (Community Plan) Amendment - Not Submitted An amendment of the City’s General Plan (Community Plan) is required for any change to the Very Low Residential Density Land Use Designation located in the North Bluff District to allow multi-unit development on lots identified with the Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 298-241-06, 298-241-07, and 299-030-14. Proposed/revised land use maps and Community Plan text revisions are required to be included with the application submittal by the Applicant.

4. Environmental Assessment Application – Not Submitted The proposed Seaside Ridge project is subject to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is located on an environmentally sensitive site that is surrounded by vacant property, one single dwelling unit, and beach and bluffs. Therefore, the project does not qualify as CEQA-exempt “infill” development. CEQA, including recent changes, only exempts infill development when it is surrounded on three sides by existing urban development (Cal.Pub.Res.Code Sec. 21080.66 (a)(2)(A-B). Further, CEQA applies because the project is not a “Builder’s Remedy” site (Ca.Pub.Res.Code Sec. 21080.66 (a)(1)(B)). CEQA also applies because the project is inconsistent with the City’s Community Plan, LCP, zoning, and Overlay 7 September 22, 2025 Item 7
City Council Agenda Report
Initial Consideration of Courtesy Appeal Per DMMC 1.12.020 Seaside Ridge Housing Development
September 22, 2025

Page 8 of 12 ends

zones, regardless of any requested density bonus incentive, concessions, waivers, or reduction in development standards (Ca.Pub.Res.Code Sec. 21080.66 (a)(4)(A) and (C).

Environmental Assessment information was not provided by the Applicant, nor has the required deposit of $1,090 been paid.

5. Design Review Permit Application – Not Submitted
Approval of a discretionary Design Review Permit is required for all development in the City of Del Mar that is not otherwise exempted. Because the City determined that Seaside Ridge is not subject to the provisions of AB 1398 (Housing Element Rezone Sites), discretionary development applications and approvals are required in accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 23.08. The Applicant was asked to submit an unaltered City of Del Mar Design Review Permit Application and Submittal Checklist but they refused to comply with this request. The application fee of $11,380 was not paid.

6. Discretionary Permits – Not Submitted
Because the project site is located in the Coastal Commission-approved Coastal Bluff Overlay Zone; the Bluff, Slope and Canyon Overlay Zone; and Lagoon Overlay Zone, and the project requires significant grading to adequately create access and housing units, the Director required the following discretionary permits be submitted in accordance with existing regulatory framework. To date, none of the identified discretionary applications have been submitted, nor have required fees identified in parenthesis been paid:
i. Conditional Use Permit Application ($2,595) – Not submitted ii. Coastal Development Application ($3,185) – Not submitted iii. Land Conservation Permit Application ($3,185) – Not submitted Since the formal application for Seaside Ridge was submitted to the City in April 2023, the Applicant has refused to submit these application materials which are consistent with State housing law and the City’s LCP and Community Plan, resulting in an incomplete application and several year processing delay.

C. Seaside Ridge Site Is A Contingency Housing Site, Not A By-Right Project The fundamental flaw in the Applicant’s legal posture is that the “Builder’s Remedy” applies and the Coastal Act does not. Neither is the case. Instead of recognizing this fact, counsel for the Applicant submitted five legal treatises on housing law which have served to delay the application process. These law review type letters are not a substitution for the Applicant’s obligation to respond to the deficient areas identified in the City’s four incomplete application determinations.

The Applicant’s counsel relies on Ca Gov Code Sec 65583.2 in asserting that the City had an obligation to rezone the Seaside Ridge site. However, this assumes that the Seaside Ridge site was needed to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment 8 September 22, 2025 Item 7
City Council Agenda Report
Initial Consideration of Courtesy Appeal Per DMMC 1.12.020 Seaside Ridge Housing Development
September 22, 2025

Page 9 of 12 ends

(“RHNA”) which is not the case. Section 65583.2 clearly states what is required and what is not required:
“If a local government fails to complete the rezoning by the deadline provided in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), as it may be extended pursuant to subdivision (f), except as provided in paragraph (2), a local government may not disapprove a housing development project, nor
require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other locally imposed discretionary permit, or impose a condition that would render the project infeasible, if the housing development project, (A) is proposed to be
located on a site required to be rezoned pursuant to the program action required by that subparagraph and, (B)
complies with applicable, objective general plan and
zoning standards and criteria, including design review
standards, described in the program action required by that subparagraph. Any subdivision of sites shall be subject to the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410)). Design review shall not constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.( Emphasis added). (CA Gov.

Code Sec 65583.2 (g)(1)).

The north bluff property owned by Applicant, where Seaside Ridge is proposed, was not required to be rezoned because it is not needed for the City to meet its obligations specified in the 6
th Cycle Housing Element as the City’s housing sites strategy and program actions to implement the City’s Housing Element strategy to meet its RHNA allocation. This is because the Applicant’s property is only a “contingency” site if the Fairgrounds Housing Plan does not materialize.

The City and the 22nd District Agricultural Association (22nd DAA) have an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement in place (executed March 2024, effective April 15, 2024) that remains in full force and effect today, with over $1.5M in State Housing Acceleration Program funds invested in development feasibility studies that are currently underway.

This fact is identified in Chapter 3 and Appendix B of the City’s 6th Housing Element which explicitly identifies the specific sites that the City is relying on to meet its RHNA obligation.

The Seaside Ridge project site is not being relied upon to meet RHNA. The sites relied upon to meet the assigned 113 lower income RHNA units in all adopted versions of the Housing Element, including the final certified 6th Housing Element are as follows:

Development Sites Units
Professional Commercial (PC) 3 lower income units, two sites 9 September 22, 2025 Item 7
City Council Agenda Report
Initial Consideration of Courtesy Appeal Per DMMC 1.12.020 Seaside Ridge Housing Development
September 22, 2025

Page 10 of 12 ends

North Commercial (NC) (without Watermark) 22 lower income units, six sites Rezoned Watermark Lots (NC) Approved project includes 6 low, 2 very low, 2 extremely low-income units
Public Facilities (PF)- City Owned Properties 4 lower income 10th Street site 941 Camino Del Mar Specific Plan Approved project includes 2 lowincome units Existing Residentially Zoned Properties 3 lower income units 28th Street site Accessory Dwelling Unit Production 15 low-income units
State Fairgrounds Property 54 lower income units
The determination that the Seaside Ridge site is only listed as a “contingency site” is found in the City’s 6
th Housing Element Chapter 3 “Sites Suitable for Lower Income Housing” analysis on pages 3-66 to 3-68 and Appendix B Vacant Sites Analysis in the Section C.1 Analysis of State Fairgrounds Sites and Contingency Rezone and Table B-3 on page B-31 where it references sites to be considered if necessary to implement the Program 1E contingency rezone.

D. The Seaside Ridge Preliminary Application is Void
The October 2022 Preliminary Development Application (PDA22-001) proposed a Housing Development Project consisting of 308,968 “square-feet of construction.” However, the Coastal Development Permit (CDP23-008) application materials submitted to the City on March 30, 2023, proposed a Housing Development Project consisting of 396,259 squarefeet of construction, a 28% increase in size, and as a result, voided the ability of the Applicant to assert the benefits of the Builders Remedy.

This proposed increase in project development size and scope is important because State housing laws recognize the consequences of a project growing beyond the development scope identified in the Preliminary Application with the result being the Preliminary Application considered at that time as “deemed not being submitted:” “After submittal of all of the information required by subdivision (a), if the development proponent revises the project such that the number of residential units or square footage of
construction changes by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increase resulting from the receipt of a density
bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or similar
provision, the housing development project shall not be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application that satisfies this section until the development proponent
resubmits the information required by subdivision (a) so that it reflects the revisions.
10 September 22, 2025 Item 7
City Council Agenda Report
Initial Consideration of Courtesy Appeal Per DMMC 1.12.020 Seaside Ridge Housing Development
September 22, 2025

Page 11 of 12 ends

For purposes of this subdivision, “square footage of
construction” means the building area, as defined by the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations).” (CA Gov. Code Sec. 65941.1(c)).

The Applicant has asserted that the growth of the project did not exceed 20% because it was a result of a clerical calculation error in a data table on the October 2022 Preliminary Plans. However, that data was un-tabulated and the proposed building area of “308,968 square-feet” was stated and clearly proposed to the City in three key areas: (1) a narrative project description contained on page A-0.6 of the Preliminary Development Plans that states “212,232 sf (0.71 FAR) of residential space above a 96,736 sf, two-level underground parking podium (0.32 FAR), for a total square foot development of 308,968 sf (total FAR of 1.03)”; (2) a separately submitted three-page “Expanded Project Description;” and (3) the SB 330 Preliminary Development Application form/checklist submitted to the City.

The City’s determination that the Preliminary Development Application was “deemed not being submitted” due to the change in project size was provided in writing to the Applicant after each submittal/resubmittal of project application materials.

The PDA22-001 plans can be viewed via the following link:
delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/8324/5-929-Border-Avenue-Nieto-Site-Plan1.

The CDP23-008 plans can be viewed via the following link:
delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/8632/Architectural-Plans CONCLUSION:

The Applicant’s legal position is that the City has no authority whatsoever to bring the project in conformance with the City’s LCP, Community Plan, or mitigate any significant environmental impact. The Director’s determination that the Seaside Ridge application was not complete was not a factual error, there has not been any new information that would alter that determination, nor have there been findings that are not supportive of that determination.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact or action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item as this is a private development project subject to development processing fees.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The proposed City Council action does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it will not have a potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the 11 September 22, 2025 Item 7
City Council Agenda Report
Initial Consideration of Courtesy Appeal Per DMMC 1.12.020 Seaside Ridge Housing Development
September 22, 2025

Page 12 of 12 ends

environment and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA. No further action under CEQA is required.

HOUSING IMPACT: The City’s certified 6th Cycle Housing Element remains in compliance with State Housing law and the City continues to implement its adopted housing strategies. This includes continued processing of all submitted development permit applications in good faith. The City has been recognized as a leader for 6th Cycle housing production in the region based on its implementation of required housing action programs, housing production of 67% of its assigned RHNA (118 units out of 175 total units assigned) and approved entitlements to date in excess of its RHNA (110% based on 192 total units already entitled) at mid-cycle for the planning years 2021 to 2029. If a complete development application is submitted for the Seaside Ridge housing development project it could further augment housing production and help the City to address a portion of its RHNA need to create at least 113 lower income units.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A - Lazier Appeal Document
Attachment B - July 10, 2025 Legal Position Letter from Applicant’s Attorney Attachment C - July 18, 2025 Response Letter from City Attorney Attachment D - Director’s April 27, 2023 Incompleteness Determination Attachment E - Director’s June 30, 2023 Incompleteness Determination Attachment F - Director’s September 26, 2023 Incompleteness Determination Attachment G - Director’s December 20, 2023 Incompleteness Determination 12 September 22, 2025 Item 7
Attachment A
13 September 22, 2025 Item 7
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
501 West Broadway, 18th Floor
San Diego, California 92101-3598
619.338.6500 main
619.234.3815 fax
www.sheppardmullin.com
July 31, 2025
File Number: 47WF-387822

VIA HAND DELIVERY AND
EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE TO: [email protected]
City Clerk
City of Del Mar
1050 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Re: Appeal of July 18, 2025, Determination
Dear City Clerk:

On behalf of the Applicant for the Seaside Ridge Project, we have received correspondence from City Attorney Ralph Hicks dated July 18, 2025, determining that the Project application is incomplete. For purposes of this appeal, we assume Mr. Hicks is acting on behalf of City Planning and Community Development staff in making this determination.

We reiterate our opinion that the City has not provided an adequate mechanism to appeal a staff determination of incompleteness. We remind the City that DMMC Chapter 1.12 is applicable to discretionary projects subject to an administrative or public hearing, neither of which has been conducted for the Project application. However, pursuant to the direction provided in the City Attorney’s correspondence, we hereby submit the below Appeal pursuant to Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Chapter 1.12, under protest and reserving all rights to continue to contest the applicability of this process to the instant circumstances. This Appeal is submitted within 10 working days following the determination for which review is sought and is submitted together with the fee of $1,678 pursuant to the City’s current Fee Schedule, effective July 1, 2025.

1. Appellant’s full name, address and phone number: Carol Anne Lazier, Trustee of the Stensrud Lazier Holding Trust, 2717 Via de la Valle, Del Mar, CA 92014, (619) 972- 4650

2. Subordinate entity: City Attorney on behalf of Planning and Community Development Staff

3. Date of Determination: July 18, 2025

4. Determination for which review is sought: Incompleteness Determination, Seaside Ridge housing development project Application

5. Appellant’s interest in the appealed determination: Appellant is the Owner of the Seaside Ridge Project site, 929 Border Avenue, and Applicant for the housing development project
14 September 22, 2025 Item 7
City Clerk
July 31, 2025

Page 2 ends

6. Grounds for appeal: The Appeal is based on (A) Factual Error, (B) New Information, (C) Unsupported Findings and (D) Conflicts with applicable law Further documentation is provided below and attached hereto.

A. Factual Error
The statements or evidence relied upon by the decision maker when finding the Application incomplete were inaccurate.

First, the determination claims the Project Application is incomplete because an application for rezoning is required. This claim is factually incorrect.

The City is mandated by law to ensure that its Housing Element inventory can accommodate, at all times throughout the planning period, its unmet share of the regional housing need allocated pursuant to Government Code section 65584 (“RHNA”). (Gov. Code § 65863.) The City’s Housing Element identifies the Project site as consisting of two vacant “candidate” sites subject to rezoning in order to satisfy State Housing Element law, requiring at least one-half of the City’s lower-income RHNA is to be accommodated on vacant developable sites. (Housing Program 1E.) The identification of a sufficient amount of vacant developable sites in the City’s Housing Element was a statutory mandate in order to obtain certification of the City’s Housing Element. Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2 subdivisions (h)-(i), if a site is required to be rezoned to accommodate the City’s RHNA then the City shall rezone it within 1 year of the statutory deadline for the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update to allow residential use by right for developments in which at least 20% of the units are affordable. This is the statutory mandate. The statutory deadline for the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update for local governments within the jurisdiction of the San Diego Association of Governments was April 30, 2021. (Gov. Code § 65588.) Accordingly, the City was required by law to complete rezoning of sufficient vacant developable sites required to accommodate the City’s RHNA, including the Project site, by April 30, 2022.1

Next, the determination erroneously claims that the Project site is not currently needed to accommodate the City’s RHNA but is a “backup” or “contingency” site and that, therefore, the City is not required to rezone the Project site as part of its Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) Housing Element Implementation Overlay Zone (“HEI-OZ”) unless adequate progress is not made by April 2024 as described in Program 3A (Agreement with State to Build Affordable Housing Units on State Fairgrounds property). This claim is also untrue. The statutory mandate requires rezoning of the Project site regardless of any eventual progress on Housing Element Program 3A. As the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) has advised, 2 both:
1 This deadline was extended until August 15, 2024, but only if the local government adopted a sixth revision of the housing element that HCD found to be substantially compliant within one year of the statutory deadline. (Gov Code § 65583.4(a).) The City did not. 2 By letter from HCD to City Manager Ashley Jones, dated December 11, 2024, attached as Exhibit 1 hereto.
15 September 22, 2025 Item 7
City Clerk
July 31, 2025

Page 3 ends

1. the City shall ensure that its housing element inventory or program to make sites available pursuant to Section 65583(c)(1) can accommodate “at all times throughout the planning period” its remaining RHNA and “[a]t no time” shall the City “permit or cause its inventory of sites identified in the housing element to be insufficient to meet its remaining unmet share” of the RHNA (GC § 65863(a)); and

2. “regardless of sites identified in any contingency program, it must continue to process housing development applications submitted during the time the City’s housing element was out of compliance, pursuant to Government Code section 6558[9.]5, subdivision (d)(5).”
As HCD and the California Attorney General3 have made clear, the City has a legal obligation to rezone the Project site pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2 to meet its legal mandate to ensure that adequate capacity is available at all times to accommodate its RHNA.

It is not relevant whether the City has “not determined that the State Fairgrounds Affordable Housing Plan is infeasible” as it has also not determined to proceed with any development of affordable housing on the Fairgrounds site; therefore, rezoning of the Project site is the responsibility of the City of Del Mar and is required by statute to provide adequate capacity at all times.

The determination further mistakenly claims that the City can require discretionary permits for the Project on the basis that it does not “comply with the City’s objective design guidelines or zoning standards found in the City’s Community Plan and LCP” including height and density limits applicable in the R1-40 zone and various overlay zones, as applicable.

Under State law, because the City failed to complete the required rezoning by the required deadline, the City may not disapprove, or require discretionary permits for, a housing development project proposed on a site required to be rezoned that complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria described in the rezoning program action, if the project includes at least 49% of the base density as affordable to very low, low and/ or moderate income households. (Gov. Code § 65583(g)(1), (4).) The City’s rezoning program states “The rezone action would be addressed by applying the Housing Element Implementation Overlay Zone to accommodate development of housing at 20-25 dwelling units per acre ‘by right’ per Government Code Sections 65583.2(h) and (i).” Because the Project includes 49% affordable units of its base zoning units (i.e., pre-density bonus units included), the only “applicable” requirement under this law is compliance with the objective standards of the HEI-OZ, not development standards in the R1-40 zone and various overlay zones, as applicable. Accordingly, the City may not disapprove administrative permits or require discretionary permits for the Project.

Moreover, in addition to complying with the objective standards of the HEI-OZ, the Project Application does not disagree with the application of objective standards in the R1-40 zone and LCP overlay zones; rather, the Project includes specific requests under State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915 et seq.) for concessions and waivers necessary to make the affordable 3 See California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General Legal Alert, June 5, 2025, attached as Exhibit 2.
16 September 22, 2025 Item 7
City Clerk
July 31, 2025

Page 4 ends

housing financially and physically feasible.4 These include concessions related to lot coverage, parking stall dimensions, and front yard setbacks, and waivers related to height, FAR, and slope access. Each of these is legally justified under Government Code § 65915 and has been submitted to the City as part of the full application. Further, the City shall grant and may not deny a requested concession or incentive unless it makes a written finding, based on substantial evidence, that the concession or incentive would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, would have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety or a listed historical resource for which there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid, or the concession or incentive would violate State or federal law. (Gov. Code § 65915(d).) The City has made no such findings.

The City’s failure to acknowledge these legally permitted modifications as part of its completeness determination is not only inaccurate — it is inconsistent with State law and precedent.

Additionally, in accordance with HCD’s direction and State law, Government Code section 65589.5(d)(5), the City is precluded from “disapproving” the Project, which is a “housing development project for very low, low- or moderate-income households”, as defined by State law, and from conditioning approval in a manner that renders the Project infeasible, including through the use of design review standards, unless, on the date the application was “deemed complete”, both: (a) the jurisdiction had adopted a substantially compliant housing element5 and (b) the housing development project was inconsistent with both the zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation. This paragraph cannot be used to disapprove a housing development project proposed on a site “identified as suitable or available for very low, low- or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element”, “including a candidate site for rezoning”, even though the housing development project was inconsistent with the zoning and general plan designation on the date the application was deemed complete. For purposes of Section 65589.5(d)(5), “deemed complete” means only that an applicant has submitted a Preliminary Application pursuant to Section 65941.1; a complete application pursuant to Section 65943 is only required if an applicant has not submitted a Preliminary Application. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(5).) The Applicant submitted the required information to be deemed to have submitted a Preliminary Application, including a site plan showing approximate square footage of each building to be occupied and the proposed land uses by number of units and square feet of residential and nonresidential development. (Gov. Code § 65941.1(a).) This was assigned Preliminary Development Application PDA22-001 that was “deemed submitted” by the City on October 14, 2022. Accordingly, the City is precluded from disapproving the Project.

The determination relies on false and inaccurate information to claim that the Project’s Preliminary Application is void due to a change in the building area. The determination relies solely on a typo in the optional checklist form and not the actual Preliminary Application materials to conclude that the Project was revised to increase the square footage of construction by more than 20% and that therefore the housing development project “shall not be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application.” In fact, the actual Preliminary Application and full Application demonstrate that revisions in the Project design between the October 2022 Preliminary Application and the timely filed March 2023 full Application increased the total construction square footage by only 17.1%.

This was communicated to the City in our second response from August 2023, both in narrative 4 See Exhibit 3, summary of requests submitted under the State Density Bonus law. 5 As determined by HCD, not the local jurisdiction. (Gov. Code § 65583(c)(1)(A).) 17 September 22, 2025 Item 7
City Clerk
July 31, 2025

Page 5 ends

and by exhibit, demonstrating that the October 2022 and March 2023 plans did not exceed 20% square footage.6 The determination’s conclusion that the Preliminary Application expired is therefore based on factual error. The Preliminary Application is valid and the Application is “deemed complete” pursuant to State law.

The determination makes inaccurate and unfounded allegations of fact that the Applicant believes that State housing laws and its Project preempt the Coastal Act (Pub. Res. Code § 30000 et. seq.) and City’s LCP. It is unclear why the City continues to believe this because the allegations overlook the extensive analysis and narrative in the Project Application and subsequent responses that demonstrates the Project’s compliance with the Coastal Act, City LCP, and State housing laws. The Project is located in the Coastal Zone and subject to the Coastal Act and City LCP. Due to the Project’s by-right/ministerial processing allowance by State housing law, the Project has requested processing via an administrative Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) and that the City’s decision on the administrative CDP would be appealable to the California Coastal Commission (“CCC”) due to the Project site’s location between the sea and first public road. To this there is no dispute. However, as previously stated it is the City’s responsibility to rezone the Project site into the LCP HEI-OZ.

The City makes several unfounded allegations of fact regarding the Project impacting coastal resources but does not cite to any evidence, study, or analysis to support its claims. The Project Application includes evidence, study, and analysis contrary to each of the City’s assertions. As demonstrated in detail in the March 2023 administrative CDP submittal package, Seaside Ridge conforms with all applicable LCP requirements, unless otherwise requested by a waiver or concession under State Density Bonus Law. To be clear, there is nothing in the application for Seaside Ridge that is attempting to avoid the mandates of the Coastal Act or stating that State housing laws or the State Density Bonus Law negates compliance with Coastal Act. The City’s repeated statement that State housing laws do not supersede the Coastal Act is factually inaccurate and out-of-date. For the last six years, legislation effective since 2019 requires density bonus to be administered in the Coastal Zone in a manner that is consistent and harmonized with the California Coastal Act. Specifically, Government Code section 65915(f)(5) states: “The granting of a density bonus shall not require, or be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval.” (Emphasis added.) Section 65915(j)(1) similarly states: “The granting of a concession or incentive shall not require or be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, study, or other discretionary approval.” (Emphasis added.)
The Applicant has demonstrated its commitment to expanding public access and protecting coastal resources in its application submittal documents and reports provided to the City on March 30, 2023, and subsequent responses, including a thorough analysis of geotechnical, bluff erosion, projected sea level rise, biological, cultural and paleontological, water quality and public safety, and the incorporation of project design features to ensure bluff sensitivity and long-term public access, and a new park along the entire bluff frontage for use by the general public. Additionally, the coastal development of low- income housing is directly in line with the spirit and intent of the 6 See Seaside Ridge Building Area Comparison, July 2023, attached as Exhibit 4. 18 September 22, 2025 Item 7
City Clerk
July 31, 2025

Page 6 ends

Coastal Act. Seaside Ridge achieves the spirit of the CCC’s Statewide Interpretive Guidelines on Affordable Housing in the Coastal Zone, dated May 5, 1981. The Guidelines state “Meaningful access to the coast requires housing opportunities as well as other forms of coastal access... If the coast is not to exclude the less affluent members of society and become an exclusive enclave of the wealthy, affordable housing must be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided.” (Emphasis added.) Further, Coastal Act Section 30604(g) states that “The Legislature finds and declares that it is important for the [Coastal] commission to encourage the protection of existing and the provision of new affordable housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income in the coastal zone.” (Emphasis added.)
Great care was taken when developing the Seaside Ridge application to ensure the new residential development and public access areas are consistent with the Coastal Act and City’s LCP including requirements relating to protection of coastal resources and hazards such as key Coastal Act Sections 30250, 30253, 30235, 30240, and 30270 related to sea level rise. The Seaside Ridge application package includes written findings as part of the City’s Supplemental CDP Questionnaire that specifically describe how the proposed development is consistent with and implements public view protection policies IV-22 through IV-27 of the City’s LCP Land Use Plan (LUP). The Seaside Ridge resubmittal package includes Project renderings from key public viewing areas and public streets. Based on the topography of the Project site, location of the proposed development and analysis provided in the Seaside Ridge application, the Project complies with the City’s LUP Public View protections. While the Project site is visible from some public viewing areas, the Project site is generally in the center of the area referred to as North Bluff and largely obscured from public view for the reasons noted above. As such, the specific Project site is observable from public views but not a major view corridor where public views to the ocean area visible over or through the site from any public viewing areas or public street. The Project is setback from the bluff and buildings are terraced from west to east to provide a scaled visual transition from the coast inland. Taller buildings are clustered to the center and east portions of the site, and new coastal view corridors will be provided onsite that can be shared by visitors, residents, and the general public. The Project creates new scenic views from the bluff that have never been available to the general public.

To ensure onsite parking capacity is maintained and on-street access to nearby coastal resources is protected, the Project provides all required parking per the City’s LCP for residents and guests (316 spaces), in addition to 43 surplus spaces and 25 public spaces. As designed, the Project does not request the use of reduced parking ratios under State Density Bonus Law allowances (Gov. Code § 65915(p)(1)).

Seaside Ridge provides new affordable housing opportunities in the Coastal Zone and avoids locating housing within the City’s flood and fire hazard areas. 7 The Seaside Ridge application
package also includes a robust Geotechnical Investigation with Bluff Erosion Rates and Sea Level Rise Projections. Consistent with the CCC’s Sea Level Rise Guidance, Seaside Ridge utilized the best available science about coastal hazards and sea level rise to determine consistency with the 7 See Exhibit 5, showing the location of the Project site in relation to the Special Flood Hazard Areas identified in the City pursuant to the most recent FEMA FIRM Panel 1307 dated December 2019.
19 September 22, 2025 Item 7
City Clerk
July 31, 2025

Page 7 ends

Coastal Act provisions. Notwithstanding the City’s LCP lack of policies or standards related to sea level rise in its Implementing Ordinances, the Project includes several voluntary acknowledgements and commitments to ensure the Project’s consistency with Coastal Act policies. The Project design incorporates increased blufftop setbacks for above- and below-grade structures that meet a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 (FS 1.5) and 1.1 for static and pseudostatic conditions, respectively. An additional 33 feet was added to the blufftop setback to account for bluff retreat from projected erosion over the life of the Project. The additional 33-foot setback considered an accelerated erosion rate due to projected sea level rise using a conservative, low probability of occurrence scenario. An additional setback was added to the above calculation for consistency with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, to accommodate for coastal hazards and to ensure sufficient lateral blufftop public access is maintained over the Project’s life. Additionally, Seaside Ridge was designed such that removal of the first westernmost grouping of above-grade structures is possible in the event of extreme coastal hazards. The Project assumes no reliance on shoreline devices (e.g., seawalls, revetments, riprap barriers, etc.) and onsite irrigation and meteoric water would be collected via storm drain system and conveyed easterly away from the bluff.

The City also ignores the fact the CCC has already reviewed and approved implementation of the HEI-OZ on the Project site, deeming development at the density proposed compliant with the Coastal Act. The City’s prior LCP amendment, which approved the application of the HEI-OZ to any property identified in the 6th Cycle Housing Element, was already processed and certified (as amended) by the CCC. The processing of the HEI-OZ into the LCP was intended to include the sites identified by the 6th Cycle, as identified in the May 11, 2022, CCC staff report which reads:
“The LCP amendment would also apply the new HEI-OZ zone to two existing parcels, known as ‘Watermark’” which fulfills the obligations of Program 2G of the City’s 5th Housing Element Cycle. These two parcels are vacant lots that were identified by the City as its ‘adequate sites’ to support the development of affordable housing in the prior 4th Cycle Housing Element, but because no action was taken by the City during that time to implement the housing program on those sites or to otherwise identify and process approval of an equivalent replacement with sufficient density, the City is required to process this action through Program 2G as part of its 5th Cycle. While Program 2G required the rezoning of only two parcels, the City created the new overlay in anticipation of applying it to various parcels during the City’s 6th Housing Element Cycle (2021-2028). These include, but are not limited to, up to six parcels along Border Avenue/North Bluff and up to three vacant parcels at the south end of Stratford Court.” (Emphasis added.) In sum, the Project Application fully demonstrates the Project’s compliance with the Coastal Act, City LCP, and State housing laws. The determination relies on inaccurate conclusions of fact in finding the Project Application incomplete for noncompliance with these requirements.

Finally, the determination makes unnecessary, inaccurate and unfounded allegations of fact relating to the Applicant’s and Applicant’s team, including counsel’s, motives regarding the proposed development of a housing development project on the Project site. The Applicant’s and her team’s intent is to serve the City’s and State’s adopted goals of furthering development 20 September 22, 2025 Item 7
City Clerk
July 31, 2025

Page 8 ends

of affordable housing on a site the City and State have designated as appropriate for affordable housing.

B. New Information
New information is available to the applicant or the interested person that was not available through reasonable efforts or due diligence at the time of the decision.

The determination relies on an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement relating to housing development on the Fairgrounds site to disclaim the City’s obligations under State law to rezone the Project site and approve the Project Application without discretionary approvals.

Even if this legally flawed argument could be supported, new information since the July 18 determination demonstrates that the City cannot rely on approval of housing on the Fairgrounds site to avoid rezoning the Project site and approving the Project ministerially.

Specifically, at its meeting of July 23, the 22nd District Agricultural Association Board (“Fair Board”), which has unilateral authority to accept or reject any housing proposal on the Fairgrounds site, the Fair Board cited the City’s adoption of a Resolution deeming the RHNA an “arbitrary and capricious state mandate” that forces the City to build too much housing in “inappropriate and/or potentially dangerous” locations and supporting an initiative to allow local zoning to override the RHNA requirement8 to question the appropriateness of proceeding with further negotiations with the City relating to a housing proposal on the Fairgrounds site pending the outcome of the ballot measure.9 In light of what Fair Board members characterized as a “standstill” in the negotiations, the City has no excuse to continue delaying compliance with its legal mandate to rezone the Project site to accommodate its RHNA “at all times” and to approve the Project ministerially.

The determination cites recent changes in the California Environmental Quality Act10, arguing that rezoning of the Project site is subject to “additional environmental review… at the project level” and claiming that a new exemption for certain infill housing development pursuant to California Public Resources Code section 21080.66 does not apply. While novel, this argument is irrelevant because the Project is not subject to discretionary approvals. Ministerial approvals are already exempt from CEQA. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080; 14 California Code of Regulations § 15060(c)(1).)
Furthermore, the determination misapplied recent CEQA legislation adopted pursuant to Assembly Bill 130 (AB 130) and Senate Bill 131 (SB 131). The section the City cites was related to AB 130 which is applicable to certain infill housing development. However, the section the City avoided citing was related to SB 131 which expressly provides that a city’s rezone of its 8 See Resolution of the City of Del Mar in Support of “Our Neighborhood Voices” Ballot Initiative, attached as Exhibit 6.
9 See article “Fair board wants Del Mar to explain ‘contradicting’ stance of affordable housing”, San Diego Union Tribune, July 24, 2025, attached as Exhibit 7. 10 California Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”) 21 September 22, 2025 Item 7
City Clerk
July 31, 2025

Page 9 ends

housing element sites for RHNA is CEQA exempt. Thus, the recent changes to CEQA further support the City’s obligation to complete rezoning of the Project site, which is not an obligation of the Project Applicant and therefore not required for a complete application.

C. Findings Not Supported
The decision maker’s stated findings to find the Application incomplete are not supported by the information provided to the decision maker.

The determination finds the Project Application incomplete because “[e]ven if the Builder’s Remedy applied” the Project is required to apply for a Rezone, Local Coastal Program Amendment, General Plan (Community Plan) Amendment, Environmental Assessment, Design Review Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Land Conservation Permit.

These findings are not supported by the information provided to the decision maker. As explained numerous times to the decision maker, and discussed above, Government Code section 65583.2 subdivisions (h)-(i) provide that, if a site is required to be rezoned to accommodate the City’s RHNA then the City shall rezone it within 1 year of the statutory deadline for the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update to allow residential use by right for developments in which at least 20% of the units are affordable. Government Code section 65583.2(i) states that “the phrase ‘use by right’ shall mean that the local government’s review of the owner-occupied or multifamily residential use may not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary local government review or approval[.]” (Emphasis added.) Further, under State law, because the City failed to complete the required rezoning by the required deadline, the City may not disapprove, or require discretionary permits for, a housing development project proposed on a site required to be rezoned that complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria described in the rezoning program action, if the project includes at least 49% affordable units. (Gov. Code § 65583(g)(1).) There is simply nothing in the information provided to the decision maker, nor applicable law, to support the determination that the Project Application is incomplete as no discretionary approvals are required. Regardless of the City’s view of the RHNA as an “arbitrary and capricious state mandate”, and regardless whether City-supported changes to State law occur at some time in the future, the City has a legal obligation now to rezone the Project site to accommodate “at all times” its RHNA and to process Project approvals ministerially.

D. Conflicts with Applicable Law
The decision to find the Application incomplete is in conflict with a land use plan, a City policy or the Municipal Code.

In addition to noncompliance with all of the legal mandates discussed above to rezone the Project site and to process and approve the Project Application ministerially, the determination is an invalid disapproval of a housing development project in violation of the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code section 65589.5 (“HAA”). Pursuant to State policy the HAA is interpreted 22 September 22, 2025 Item 7
City Clerk
July 31, 2025

Page 10 ends

and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L).) Pursuant to HAA subdivision (h)(6)(H), “Disapprove the housing development project” includes “a written determination that a preliminary application described in subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 has expired or that the applicant has otherwise lost its vested rights under the preliminary application for any reason other than those described in subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 65941.1.” A determination that the Preliminary Application has expired for failure to submit information needed to complete the application pursuant to Section 65941.1(e) constitutes an unlawful disapproval of a housing development project in violation of the HAA.

Moreover, HAA subdivision (h)(6)(H)(i) also defines the term “Disapprove the housing development project” to include a determination that an application for a housing development project is incomplete due to failure to include an item that is not required. As previously discussed, the determination found the Project Application incomplete for failure to include applications that cannot legally be required for the Project. Moreover, the HAA states that “the local agency shall bear the burden of proof” that the application item is required, not the Project Applicant. Further, HAA subdivision (h)(6)(H)(iv) states that “[i]f a local agency determines that an application is incomplete under Section 65943 after two resubmittals of the application by the applicant, the local agency shall bear the burden of establishing that the determination is not an effective disapproval of a housing development project[.]” The City has failed to meet its burden and the determination violates the HAA.

Finally, if the City Council upholds the determination that the Project Application is incomplete, it would constitute yet another violation of the HAA. Pursuant to HAA subdivision (h)(6)(H)(iii), “Disapprove the housing development project” also includes upholding on appeal a determination that an application for a housing development project is incomplete where “a reasonable person would conclude that the applicant has submitted all of the items required[.]” Regardless of the City’s objections to State mandates, any reasonable person with a basic understanding of State housing law would conclude that the City may not legally require discretionary approvals for a housing development project proposed while the City’s Housing Element was out of compliance, on a site required to be rezoned to accommodate its RHNA, that complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria described in the rezoning program action, and that includes 49% affordable units derived from the site’s base density. (Gov. Code §65589.5(d)(5); 65583(g)(1).) The City simply cannot meet its burden to show otherwise.

E. Conclusion
For all of the reasons described herein, the City Attorney’s determination that the Project Application is incomplete is in error and violates applicable law. The Application is complete. The City Council is required to hear the appeal within 60 days. Notwithstanding the procedures in DMMC Chapter 1.12, the City Council must make a final determination within this timeframe; accordingly we suggest the City waive the Initial Consideration process and set the appeal for hearing at its next available meeting within this timeframe. 23 September 22, 2025 Item 7
City Clerk
July 31, 2025

Page 11 ends

Upholding the determination on appeal would violate the HAA, the express Legislative purpose of which is “to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California’s communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(K).) The City Attorney’s determination is on the wrong side of this policy, and the law. Regardless of its disagreement with State mandates, we urge the City Council to correct this error and find the Application complete. We also urge the City Council to rezone its vacant candidate sites, with haste, into the HEI-OZ. To expedite the City’s rezoning efforts, it will be able to utilize the recently adopted SB 131 legislation finding that the action is exempt from CEQA.

Please be advised that despite the City Attorney’s baseless accusations, Applicant’s actions, including this Appeal, are undertaken to preserve all legal rights to proceed with development of the Project, including through litigation if necessary, and nothing precludes discussion of a mutually beneficial resolution. However, it is critical that the Applicant retain her rights to develop the Project to help address the State’s housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. While the Applicant preserves all legal rights to pursue this matter further, we continue to remain open to a productive resolution — one that meets both the City’s obligations and the public’s need for affordable housing along the coast. We look forward to the City Council’s decision.

Sincerely,
Brooke Miller
for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
SMRH:4937-7588-7704.4
cc: Carol Lazier
Attachments:

Exhibit 1: Letter from HCD to City Manager Ashley Jones, December 11, 2024 Exhibit 2: California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General Legal Alert, June 5, 2025
Exhibit 3: Summary of requests submitted under the State Density Bonus law Exhibit 4: Seaside Ridge Building Area Comparison, July 2023 Exhibit 5: Location of the Project site in relation to the Special Flood Hazard Areas identified in the City pursuant to the most recent FEMA FIRM Panel 1307 dated December 2019.

Exhibit 6: Resolution of the City of Del Mar in Support of “Our Neighborhood Voices” Ballot Initiative
Exhibit 7: “Fair board wants Del Mar to explain ‘contradicting’ stance of affordable housing”, San Diego Union Tribune, July 24, 2025
24 September 22, 2025 Item 7
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
501 West Broadway, 18th Floor
San Diego, California 92101-3598
619.338.6500 main
619.234.3815 fax
www.sheppardmullin.com

Exhibit 1
Letter from HCD to City Manager Ashley Jones, December 11, 2024 [ATTACHED BEHIND THIS COVER PAGE]
25 September 22, 2025 Item 7
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
December 11, 2024
Ashley Jones, City Manager
City of Del Mar
1050 Camino del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
RE: City of Del Mar 6th Cycle Housing Element Program 3A (Fairgrounds Affordable Housing) – Letter of Technical Assistance
Dear Ashley Jones:

Thank you for providing a letter to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on September 13, 2024 regarding HCD’s inquiry about the implementation of the City of Del Mar’s (City) 6th Cycle Housing Element Program 3A (Fairgrounds Affordable Housing). This inquiry was facilitated by conversations with you, Karen Brindley, and Amanda Lee on August 19, 2024, and September 5, 2024.

Background
Implementation of programs to develop affordable housing on the Fairgrounds property is fundamental for substantial compliance with housing element law and the City’s ability to meet its 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Accordingly, Program 3A commits the City to “execute a binding agreement to develop affordable housing on State-owned Fairgrounds property” by April 2024.1 On April 16, 2024, the City provided HCD a copy of the Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (ENRA) between the City and the state’s 22nd District Agricultural Association (DAA). HCD then met with the City on August 19, 2024, and requested a full implementation schedule as the ENRA does not appear to specify when affordable housing would be entitled and/or developed at the Fairgrounds site.

On September 13, 2024, the City provided HCD with a letter detailing the overall implementation status and schedule for Program 3A. The schedule outlines critical milestones, such as negotiation of a ground lease and entitlement, to ensure availability of the Fairgrounds site for affordable housing within the 6th Cycle planning period. The letter also notes significant implementation efforts to date, such as completion of a 1 April 2023. City of Del Mar Adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element, p. 4-19 to 4-21. https://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/8579/Combined-Chapters-1-4. 26 September 22, 2025 Item 7
Ashley Jones, City Manager

Page 2 ends

flooding and sea level rise vulnerability assessment and securing Cycle 2 Housing Acceleration Program (HAP) Grant funds for the Fairgrounds project.

Analysis
By executing an ENRA with the DAA in April 2024 and commencing all necessary site design and feasibility studies, the City has implemented the initial requirements of Program 3A. While the City works towards a development agreement, HCD reminds the City that effective implementation of Program 3A includes, among other things, approval of a ground lease and other key milestones per the City’s Cycle 2 HAP Grant Agreement schedule below:
• October 2025: Approval of a ground lease by all parties • July 2026: Solicit and select developer
• July 2027: Complete environmental studies
• August 2028: Obtain Coastal Commission approval (i.e., entitlement) In addition, HCD must correct the City’s assertion that Program 1E (Contingency Rezone) “is no longer required due to timely satisfaction of the ENRA.” Should the ENRA for the Fairgrounds Affordable Housing project be suspended or terminated, or development of the Fairgrounds project within the planning period be rendered infeasible, or any other action taken or not taken that is inconsistent with the schedule noted above, then Program 1E will be required.
2 Furthermore, the City claims Program 1E remains optional due to additional and/or new lower-income RHNA capacity identified beyond the City’s adopted sites inventory. But the new/additional lower-income RHNA capacity has not been amended into the element or reviewed by HCD. HCD advises the City to submit further analysis and details to formalize and support these assumptions. Please note that substantial modifications to the sites inventory and program actions would require a housing element amendment, which must be reviewed by HCD prior to adoption.3 Finally, HCD reminds the City that, regardless of sites identified in any contingency program, it must continue to process housing development applications submitted during the time the City’s housing element was out of compliance, pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (d)(5).
2 Gov. Code, § 65863, subd. (a).
3 Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (b).
27 September 22, 2025 Item 7
Ashley Jones, City Manager

Page 3 ends

Conclusion and Next Steps
Housing elements are essential to developing a blueprint for growth and are a vital tool to address California’s prolonged housing crisis. Please be aware that Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i) grants HCD authority to review any action or failure to act by a local government that it determines is inconsistent with an adopted housing element or Housing Element Law. This includes failure to implement program actions included in the housing element.4 HCD may revoke housing element compliance if the local government’s actions do not comply with state law.5 HCD appreciates the City’s cooperation and wishes the City success in implementing its housing element. HCD will monitor the City’s progress through the General Plan Annual Progress Reports required pursuant to Government Code section 65400.

HCD looks forward to continuing to collaborate with the City in meeting the commitments in the housing element. Please feel free to contact Linda Ly at [email protected] with any questions or additional information.

Sincerely,
Melinda Coy
Proactive Housing Accountability Chief
Division of Housing Policy Development
cc: Karen Brindley, Planning and Community Development Director Amanda Lee, Principal Planner
4 Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (i)(1)(A). 5 Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (i)(1)(B). 28 September 22, 2025 Item 7
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
501 West Broadway, 18th Floor
San Diego, California 92101-3598
619.338.6500 main
619.234.3815 fax
www.sheppardmullin.com

Exhibit 2
California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General Legal Alert, June 5, 2025 [ATTACHED BEHIND THIS COVER PAGE]
29 September 22, 2025 Item 7
Rob Bonta, Attorney General
California Department of Justice
Office of the Attorney General Legal Alert
Subject:

Consistent interpretation of the Builder’s Remedy in
Cal. Housing Defense Fund, et al. v. City of La Cañada
Flintridge (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Mar. 4, 2024, No.
23STCP02614) and Shelby Family Partnership, L.P. v.

City of Goleta, et al. (Super. Ct. S.B. County, Feb. 26, 2025, No. 24CV000548)
No.

OAG 2025-03
Contact for information:
[email protected]
Date:

June 5, 2025
TO: All Cities, Counties, Local Agencies, and other interested parties The purpose of this legal alert, issued by the California Attorney General’s Office (“Attorney General”), 1 is to
assist California local officials, such as county supervisors and councilmembers, planning directors, city attorneys, and county counsel, by highlighting recent amendments to the Housing Accountability Act, and two recent trial court decisions interpreting the Housing Accountability Act’s provisions regarding the Builder’s Remedy.

What is the Builder’s Remedy, and How did Recent Legislation (AB 1886 and AB 1893) Amend it? The “Builder’s Remedy,” now defined in Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (h)(11) as part of the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), is a clear statutory consequence of the failure of a local government to timely adopt a housing element in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law. The Builder’s Remedy limits a local government’s ability to reject projects that include certain affordable housing components even when they are inconsistent with the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance or general plan. The Builder’s Remedy only applies when a local government either (1) fails to timely adopt a substantially compliant housing element, or (2) falls out of substantial compliance. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d)(5)-(6).) A Builder’s Remedy application is one submitted during the time frame when a local government’s housing element is not in substantial compliance with Housing Element Law. (Ibid.) The Legislature recently clarified that substantial compliance with Housing Element Law is determined only by either the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) or by a court of competent jurisdiction. (See Assem. Bill No. 1886 (Alvarez, 2024), adding Gov. Code, §§ 65585.03 and 65589.55.)
The Legislature originally enacted the Housing Accountability Act in 1982, against the backdrop of California’s longstanding housing crisis. Eight years later, the Builder’s Remedy provisions were added to the HAA in 1990, when the Legislature amended its findings to emphasize that the lack of affordable housing is “a critical statewide problem,” a crisis made more acute by the refusal of local governments to process valid housing 1 Under the California Constitution, “it shall be the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced.” (Cal. Const., Art. V, § 13.)
30 September 22, 2025 Item 7
project applications. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (a)(1)(D), (g).) Specifically, the Legislature sought to halt actions by local governments that attempt to “deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (a)(2)(K) [“The Legislature’s intent in enacting this section . . . was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California’s communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects”].)2 Assembly Bill Number 1893 (Wicks, 2024), effective January 1, 2025, amended the HAA, including the Builder’s Remedy.3 The amendments clarified the scope of the Builder’s Remedy, and also allow those with existing Builder’s Remedy applications, deemed complete before January 1, 2025, to vest their applications under preexisting law or opt in to the new Builder’s Remedy provisions. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (f)(7).) The bill also amended the HAA to further define “disapproval” of housing development projects and provided objective standards for such projects, including density standards and project location requirements. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (h)(6), (11).) Importantly, the HAA now specifically provides that a local government’s refusal to process a Builder’s Remedy application may result in a HAA violation. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (h)(6)(E), (G).)
The HAA includes several other statutory consequences for local governments that fail to comply with state law, or undertake frivolous appeals in order to delay housing, including penalties for the failure to comply with a court order pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (k), and mandatory appeal bonds pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (m). In furtherance of the Legislature’s intent for HAA to be “interpreted and implemented to afford the fullest possible weight to . . . the approval . . . of housing,” it is imperative that all local governments consistently interpret the Builder’s Remedy and timely process related applications.

The Court’s Interpretation of the Builder’s Remedy in California Housing Defense Fund, et al. v.

City of La Cañada Flintridge
The State’s involvement in California Housing Defense Fund, et al. v. City of La Cañada Flintridge (Super. Ct.

L.A. County, Apr. 5, 2024, No. 23STCP02614) (“CalHDF case”) flows from the City of La Cañada Flintridge’s failure to adopt a housing element that substantially complied with the Housing Element Law by the October 15, 2021 statutory deadline. The City remained out of compliance until November 17, 2023, when HCD certified its housing element as substantially compliant with the Housing Element Law. During that two-year period of non-compliance, La Cañada Flintridge received a Builder’s Remedy application from a developer, filed via submittal of a preliminary application under the Housing Crisis Act (“SB 330”), and unlawfully disapproved it. Non-profit housing organization California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) filed suit following the disapproval.

The State intervened in the CalHDF case on December 20, 2023, petitioning the court for a writ of mandate requiring La Cañada Flintridge to process the developer’s Builder’s Remedy application in accordance with state law. On March 4, 2024, the superior court granted petitioner CalHDF’s and the State’s petitions for writ of mandate, holding that La Cañada Flintridge did not have a housing element in substantial compliance with state law at the time the developer submitted its preliminary Builder’s 2 For legislative history and prior codification of these findings, see Stats. 1990, c. 1439 (S.B. 2011). 3 HCD will provide further technical assistance to local governments and local agency planning staff regarding the newly amended HAA.
2 Builder’s Remedy Legal Alert
31 September 22, 2025 Item 7
Remedy application. A copy of the court’s opinion in the CalHDF case is attached to this Legal Alert.

In ordering La Cañada Flintridge to process the application in accordance with state law, the court focused on three key points:

1. The Legislature has expressed its intent that the HAA "be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing." (Gov.

Code, § 65589.5, subd. (a)(2)(L); Cal. Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 854);

2. Pursuant to the HAA, a Builder’s Remedy application vests at the time of submission of a complete preliminary application; and

3. The refusal to process a timely Builder’s Remedy application is a violation of the HAA.

Specifically, as to the first point, the court held that a “disapproval” of a Builder’s Remedy application is broadly interpreted under the HAA. Accordingly, the court held that the City’s denial of the developer’s appeal of an incompleteness determination constituted a “disapproval” within the meaning of the HAA.

Secondly, the court held that:

The HAA defines “deemed complete” to mean that “the applicant has submitted a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(5) [emphasis added].) Section 65589.5, subdivision (o)(1) states “a housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application including all of the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 was submitted.” Construing these statutory provisions, along with section 65589.5, subdivision (d), the court concludes a[n application submitted under the] Builder's Remedy “vests” if the local agency does not have a substantially compliant housing element at the time a complete preliminary application pursuant to section 65941.1 is submitted and “deemed complete.” Finally, the court concluded that the disapproval of the developer’s Builder’s Remedy application, and La Cañada Flintridge’s refusal to process the application as a Builder’s Remedy application, was a violation of the HAA.

La Cañada Flintridge appealed, and on February 28, 2025, the superior court ordered La Cañada Flintridge to either post an appeal bond of $14 million, pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (m), or dismiss its appeal. On March 4, 2025, La Cañada Flintridge dismissed its appeal.

The Court’s Interpretation of the Builder’s Remedy in Shelby Family Partnership, L.P. v.

City of Goleta, et al.

In Shelby Family Partnership, L.P. v. City of Goleta, et al. (Super. Ct. S.B. County, Feb. 26, 2025, No. 24CV00548) (“Goleta case”), the City of Goleta unlawfully refused to process an SB 330 preliminary application based on its theory that SB 330 applies only to “new” projects. The project applicant filed suit in Santa Barbara Superior Court and on December 20, 2024, the State filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner. On February 26, 3 Builder’s Remedy Legal Alert
32 September 22, 2025 Item 7
2025, the superior court issued an order requiring Goleta to process the at-issue affordable housing project pursuant to state law. A copy of the court’s opinion in the Goleta case is attached to this Legal Alert.

In its decision, the court made two key findings:

1. SB 330 is not limited only to “new” development projects and does not foreclose applicants from amending a project to avail themselves of its protections, including submitting a preliminary application pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy; and

2. Local governments cannot disapprove qualifying housing development projects, except in narrowly defined circumstances pursuant to the HAA.

In making these findings, the court reasoned that, for the purposes of the HAA:

It is noteworthy that the statutorily defined term is “disapprove the housing development project” and not merely “disapprove.” Not all returns of proposed amendment paperwork would or should constitute a disapproval of “the . . . project.” When viewing the three items “included” within the statutory definition of “disapprove the housing development project,” each is based upon the failure of [Goleta] to proceed with the processing of the project as required by law, either by expressly rejecting the project by vote or by neglecting time obligations. The conduct of [Goleta] here falls within this statutory definition by demonstrating a clear intent to conclude the processing of the project as proposed . . . and not merely a rejection of an incidental amendment.

As in the CalHDF case, the court in the Goleta case broadly interpreted “disapprove the housing development project” to include actions by a local government that “conclude the processing of” a Builder’s Remedy “project as proposed.” Consequently, these cases correctly interpret the law to prohibit a local government from taking an action that forecloses the processing of a valid Builder’s Remedy project. AB 1893 further defined “disapproval” under the HAA, adding that the failure to take final administrative action on a proposed housing development project application may constitute a disapproval under the HAA. (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (h)(6) [providing a non-exhaustive list of 10 enumerated circumstances in which a project may be considered disapproved under the HAA].) Key Takeaways Regarding the Vesting of Builder’s Remedy Applications The trial courts’ decisions in the CalHDF and Goleta cases consistently interpret the HAA, holding that preliminary Builder’s Remedy applications vest at the time of submission. The key points of the two decisions work in concert to support the Legislature’s intent for the HAA to be interpreted broadly, in favor of a project’s approval: (1) that Builder’s Remedy applications vest at the time a preliminary application that meets the standards of SB 330 is submitted to the local government; (2) that a local government must process a preliminary application submitted under SB 330, even if it pertains to an already completed development application; (3) that refusal to process a valid Builder’s Remedy application is a violation of the HAA; and (4) that the HAA’s appeal bond provision requires courts to order that a local agency post a bond when it takes an appeal from an HAA judgment, to ensure the continued financial viability of the underlying housing development project, including Builder’s Remedy projects. 4 Builder’s Remedy Legal Alert
33 September 22, 2025 Item 7
These decisions provide significant guidance to local governments interpreting and implementing the HAA and the Builder’s Remedy.

Possible Consequences for the Failure to Process a Builder’s Remedy Application Pursuant to State Law Consequences for the failure to properly implement in the Builder’s Remedy could include:

Referral to or Intervention by the Attorney General: Where a local government has received a complete Builder’s Remedy application after the housing element deadline in Government Code section 65588, subdivision (e), but before HCD has issued a substantial compliance certification for the local government’s housing element, the local government’s refusal to process the Builder’s Remedy application in accordance with the law may result in HCD notifying the Attorney General of an HAA violation pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (j). (See also Gov. Code, § 65585.01 [providing HCD and the Attorney General an automatic right to intervene in existing third-party enforcement actions].) HAA Penalties: Where a court has found that a local government has violated the HAA, a local government is potentially exposed to certain penalties under the HAA, including attorney’s fees, and a minimum fine of $10,000 per unit of the proposed project pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (k). If a court finds that a local government acted in bad faith in violating the HAA and failed to follow a court’s order or judgment, fines pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (k) will be multiplied by a factor of five. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (l).) If a court has found that a local government previously violated the HAA within the planning period, the fines will be multiplied by an additional factor for each previous violation. (Ibid.) HAA Appeal Bond Provision: Where a local government appeals a court order finding that the local government violated the HAA, the local government must post an appeal bond pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (m). The appeal bond provision is evidence of the Legislature’s intent that the HAA be “interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (a)(2)(L).) In the CalHDF case, the court ordered La Cañada Flintridge to post an appeal bond of $14 million, following post-judgment discovery, including expert discovery, or dismiss its appeal.

Taken together, these consequences emphasize the importance of the HAA and the Legislature’s intent to further promote housing development projects. Consistent interpretation and application of the HAA statewide, including processing Builder’s Remedy applications without delay, is essential to reaching our collective mandate to resolve the housing shortage crisis.
5 Builder’s Remedy Legal Alert
34 September 22, 2025 Item 7
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
LISA ELLS – 243657
ALEXANDER GOURSE – 321631

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: (415) 433-6830
Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
DYLAN CASEY – 325222
NICHOLAS ECKENWILER – 348744

CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE FUND
360 Grand Ave #323
Oakland, California 94610
Telephone: (443) 223-8231
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE
FUND, a California nonprofit public
benefit corporation,
Petitioner and Plaintiff,
v.

CITY OF LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE,
Respondent and Defendant,
600 FOOTHILL OWNER, LP, a limited
partnership,
Real Party in Interest

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, EX REL. ROB BONTA;

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT,
Petitioners-Intervenors.

Case No. 23STCP02614
Related Case No. 23STCP02575

NOTICE OF RULING ON PETITIONS
FOR WRIT OF MANDATE (Code Civ.

Proc., § 1019.5)
Judge: Hon. Mitchell L. Beckloff
Dept: 86
Trial Date: March 1, 2024
Action Filed: July 25, 2023
[4450697.1] 1

NOTICE OF RULING ON PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
35 September 22, 2025 Item 7
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
TO RESPONDENT CITY OF LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE AND ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on March 4, 2024, the Court in the above-captioned matter entered a Minute Order that, among other things, grants Petitioner’s and Petitioner-Intervenors’ petitions for writ of mandate for the reasons set forth in its contemporaneously filed “Order on Petitions for Writ of Mandate and Complaints for Declaratory Relief.” A true and correct copy of the aforementioned Minute Order, dated March 4, 2024, is attached as Exhibit A and is incorporated into this notice by this reference.

A true and correct copy of the aforementioned Order on Petitions for Writ of Mandate and Complaints for Declaratory Relief, dated March 4, 2024, is attached as Exhibit B and is incorporated into this notice by this reference.

DATED: March 6, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
By: /s/ Alexander Gourse
Alexander Gourse
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff
[4450697.1] 2

NOTICE OF RULING ON PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
36 September 22, 2025 Item 7
Exhibit A Exhibit Exhibit A
37 September 22, 2025 Item 7

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 86 23STCP02614 March 4, 2024
CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE FUND, A CALIFORNIA 2:00 PM
NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION vs CITY

OF CITY OFLA CANADA FLINTRIDGE
Judge: Honorable Mitchell L. Beckloff CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: F. Becerra ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: None
APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff(s): No Appearances
For Defendant(s): No Appearances
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Ruling on Submitted Matter-Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate
The Court, having taken the matter under submission on 03/01/2024 for Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate, now rules as follows:

The court issues its ruling in accordance with the "ORDER ON PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINTS FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF" consisting of 39 pages, filed this date and incorporated herein by reference to the Court file.

The petition for writ of mandate is granted for the reasons set forth in the Court's order.

Petitioner's exhibit 1 is ordered to be preserved unaltered until a final judgment is rendered in this case and is to be forwarded to the court of appeal in the event of an appeal.

Counsel for Petitioner is to prepare a proposed judgment, serve on the opposing parties for approval as to form, wait ten days after service for any objections, meet and confer if there are objections, and then lodge (do not efile) the proposed judgment directly in Department 86 and file (do not lodge) a declaration stating the existence or non-existence of any unresolved objections (LASC Local Rule 3.231 (n)).

Counsel for Petitioner is to give notice.

Certificate of Mailing is attached.

Minute Order Page 1 of 1
38 September 22, 2025 Item 7
Exhibit B Exhibit Exhibit B
39 September 22, 2025 Item 7
Superior~ L E O
County of1rt or California
OS Angeles
MAR 04 2024 CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEFENSE FUND v. CITY OF LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE Case Number: 23STCP02614 [Related to Case No. 23STPC02575) Davidw•Slayton, Executive rwi,._ vrn~f/C/erk Of Co, ,
By: F. Becerra, Deputy
Hearing Date: March 1, 2024

ORDER ON PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINTS FOR

DECLARATORY RELIEF
Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code1 section 65589.5, a municipality may not "disapprove" a qualifying affordable housing project on the grounds it does not comply with the municipality's zoning and general plan ifthe developer submitted either a statutorily defined "preliminary application" or a "complete development application" while the city's housing element was not in substantial compliance with state law. (See§ 65589.5, subds. (d)(S), (h)(S), (o)(l).) This statutory provision, colloquially known as the "Builder's Remedy," incentivizes compliance with the Housing Element Law by temporarily suspending the power of non-compliant municipalities to enforce their zoning rules agairst qualifying affordable housing projects.

Respondents, the City of La Canada Flintridge, the City of La Canada Flintridge Community Development Department, and the City of l a Canada Flintridge City Council (collectively, Respondents or the City) determined Petitioner 600 Foothill Owner, L.P.'s (600 Foothill) proposed mixed-use development did not qualify for the Builder's Remedy. Petitioner 600 Foothill, Petitioner California Housing Defense Fund (CHDF), and Petitioners-lntervenors the People ofthe State ofCalifornia, Ex. Rel. Rob Banta and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD){collectively, lntervenors), challenge Respondents' decision.

The petitions are granted. The court orders a writ shall issue directing Respondents to set aside their May 1., 2023 decision finding 600 Foothill's application doe5 not qualify as a Builder's Remedy pr·Jject and to process the application in accordance wi:h the HAA.

JUDICIAL NOTICE
600 Foothill's Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) filed November 8. 2023 is denied as to Exhibit A and grant2d as to Exhibits B through F. Respondents' objections to Exhibits B through Fare overruled. Respondents' objections 1 and 4 are sustained to the extent they pertain to Exhibit A.
1 All further undesignated statutory references are to this code.

Page 1 of 39 ends

40 September 22, 2025 Item 7
Respondents' RJN in support of its opposition to the 600 Foothill petition is granted as to all referenced exhibits except as to Exhibits D-3, V and BB.2 600 Foothill's Reply RJN of Exhibit AA is granted,
CHDF' s RJN of Exhibits A through Dis granted.

Respondents' RJN in support of its opposition to the CHDF petition is granted as to all referenced exhibits except as to Exhibit D-3 and V. Except as to Exhibits D-3 and V, the objections of lntervenors and CHDF are overruled.

For all RJNs, the court does not judicially notice any particular interpretation of the records.

Nor does the court judicially notice the truth of hearsay statements within the judicially noticed records.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS, MOTION IN LIM/NE ANO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1094.S, SUBDIVISION (E)
Preliminarily, the court finds none of the parties' evidentiary objections are material to the disposition of any cause of action or issue. The court nonetheless rules on the objections for completeness. The court notes it is not required to parse through long narratives with generalized objections. The court may overrule an objection if the material objected to contains unobjectionable material. The parties make many objections to multiple sentences where much or some of the material is not objectionable. (See Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists, Local 1304, United Steelworkers ... (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 675, 712.) 600 Foothill's Objections
Declaration of Lynda-Jo Hernandez: All objections are overruled.

Declaration of Kim Bowan: All objections are overruled except 3, 12 and 17.

Declaration of Peter Sheridan: All objections are overruled.

Declaration of Keith Eich: All objections are overruled.

Declaration of Susan Koleda: All objections are overruled.

Declaration of Teresa Walker: All objections are overruled except 3, 11, 17, 26 and 29.

Declaration of Richard Gunter Ill: All objections are overruled except 5-8 and 14-20.

Ill
2 Contrary to 600 Foothill's assertion, Respondents did not request judicial notice of Exhibit A to the Koleda declaration. 600 Foothill and lntervenors appear correct-Respondents did not submit Exhibits D-3 or V with the Koleda declaration. Accordingly, the court cannot judicially notice E><hibits D-3 or V.

Page 2 of 39 ends

41 September 22, 2025 Item 7
Respondents' Objections to 600 Foothill's Evidence
Declaration of Melinda Coy: All objections are overruled.

Reply Declaration of Garret Weyand: All objections are overruled except 3, 4, 7 and 8. 3 lntervenors' Objections
Declaration of Susan Koleda: All objections are overruled.

CHDF' s Objections
Declaration ofTeresa Walker: All objections are overruled except 2, 4 and 6.

Declaration of Susan Koleda: All objections are overruled.

Declarations of Eich, Bowman, Gunter Ill and Hernandel are all overruled as discussed infra.

Motion In limine
Respondents' Motion In limine to Exclude Issues or Evidence (filed February 5, 2024) is denied.

Respondents do not demonstrate 600 Foothill has submitted any evidence concerning "infeasibility'' of the project that is outside of the administrative record. Respondents do not require discovery to respond to 600 Foothill's infeasibility arguments given such arguments are based entirely on the administrative record. (See§ 65589.5, subd. (m)(l); Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (e).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.S. Subdivision {e) Section 65589.S, subdivision (m)(l) in the HAA specifies "[a]ny action brought to enforce the provisions of this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure...." Accordingly, the HAA causes of action are subject to the limitations on extrarecord evidence in Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subd. (e). Nonetheless, the HAA causes of action involve questions of substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law, governed, at least in part, by Code of Civil Procedure section 1085. (See e.g., § 65587, subd. {d){2).) Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.S, subdivision (e) does not apply to a cause of action governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1085.

The parties have neglected to suggest which parts of their declarations are subject to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1094.5, 1085 or both. The parties also have not moved to augment the administrative record pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (e). Under the circumstances, the court will admit and consider the parties' declarations despite the court 3 The declaration is properly submitted to respond to the defense of unclean hands and allegations of "manipulation of the HCD approval process" discussed in Respondents' opposition brief.

Page 3 of 39 ends

42 September 22, 2025 Item 7
having made no order to augment the record.4 The court notes, however, even if t he court excluded all the extra-record evidence submitted, including the lengthy Koleda declarations, the result here would not change.

BACKGROUND
The Housing Element Law5
"In 1980, the Legislature enacted the Housing Element Law, 'a separate, comprehensive statutory scheme that substantially strengthened the requirements of the housing element component of local general plans.' " (Martinez v. City ofClovis (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 193, 221- 222 [Martinez].)
A housing element within a general plan must Include certain components, including, but not limited to: an assessment of housing needs and the resources available and constraints to meeting those needs; an inventory of sites available to meet the locality's housing needs at different income levels, including the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA); a statement of goals, quantified objectives, and policies to affirmatively further fair housing; and a schedule of actions to address the housing element's goals and objectives.(§ 65583, subds. (a), (b), (c).) "A municipality must review its housing element for the appropriateness of its housing goals, objectives, and policies and must revise the housing element in accordance with a statutory schedule.(§ 65588, subds. (a)1 (b).) The interval between the due dates for the revised housing element is referred to as a planning period or cycle, which usually is eight years." (Martinez~ supra, 90 Cal.App.5th at 221-222.)
"Before revising its housing element, a local government must make a draft available for public comment and, after comments are received, submit the draft, as revised to address the comments, to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). (§ 65585, subd. (b)(l); see§ 65588 {review and revision of housing element by local government].) After a draft is submitted, the HCD must review it, consider any written comments from any public agency, group, or person, and make written findings as to whether the draft substantially complies with the Housing Element Law.(§ 65585, subds. (b)(3), (c), (d); ....) l,J) If the HCD finds the draft does not substantially comply with the Housing Element Law, the local government must either (1) change the draft to substantially comply or (2) adopt the draft without changes along with a resolution containing findings that explain its belief that the draft substantially complies with the law.(§ 65585, subd. (f).)" (Martinez✓ supra, 90 Cal.App.5th at 221-222.) • At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties agreed the court could consider all of the evidence before it without regard to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (e). s See section 65580, et seq.

Page 4 of 39 ends

Del Mar City CouncilSeptember 22, 2025

Del Mar City Council
September 22, 2025