Del Mar City Council
Special Meeting Agenda
City of Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California 92014
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.
NOTICE AND CALL OF
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE DEL MAR
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, August 3, 2026 2:30 p.m.
City of Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
*********************************************
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Mayor of the City of Del Mar has called a Special Meeting at the time and place listed above to consider the following: Please refer to the attached agenda.
CERTIFICATION
I, Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, hereby certify that a copy of this notice was posted at City Hall and distributed to the City Council on July 31, 2026, at approximately 3:40 p.m.
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
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.
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 “Red Dots” are available on the City’s website: http://www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter Tracy Martinez
Mayor
John W. Spelich
Deputy Mayor
Terry Gaasterland
Council Member
Dan Quirk
Council Member
Ashley Jones
City Manager
Christina Cameron
City Attorney
Sarah Krietor
Administrative
Services
Manager/City Clerk
Del Mar City Council Special Meeting August 3, 2026
Agenda Page 2
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 www.delmar.ca.us I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Public comment is restricted to only items listed on the Special Meeting Agenda.
Members of the public can participate in the meeting by submitting a written red dot comment via email to [email protected]. The subject line of your email should clearly state the item number you would like to comment on. The deadline to submit written comments is 12 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Electronic presentations must be submitted before 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting; presentations cannot be loaded during the meeting. Any member of the public wishing to address the City Council on an item listed on the closed session agenda will have an opportunity to present testimony to the City Council prior to the City Council convening into closed session either by providing a comment in-person or remotely using the Zoom link and/or dial-in information provided below. All comments from the public will be limited to three (3) minutes. No member of the public will be allowed to be present once the City Council convenes into closed session.
Zoom Link: https://tinyurl.com/zoomdelmar
Phone: (669) 900-6833
Meeting ID: 879 0650 1544
To indicate you wish to speak use the “Raise Hand” feature or *9 by phone. Upon joining the meeting, all attendees will automatically be muted with video feed disabled. When called to speak, please unmute yourself using the “Unmute” button or by pressing *6 on your phone, and state your name and affiliation (if applicable).
Remote speakers are responsible for verifying their audio and video equipment is operational prior to the meeting.
III. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. Consideration of Investigative Referral Concerning Elected and Appointed Officials
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council review a complaint submitted to the City of Del Mar by a member of the public raising concerns about potential misconduct by State elected and appointed officials (Attachment A) and consider making investigative referrals to the San Diego District Attorney’s office (Attachment B) and United States Attorney for the Southern California District (Attachment C).
Clerk’s File No. 401-1; 1201-3
IV. ADJOURNMENT
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Christina Cameron, City Attorney
Ashley Jones, City Manager
Ralph Hicks, Deputy City Attorney
DATE: August 3, 2026
SUBJECT: Consideration of Investigative Referral Concerning Elected and Appointed Officials REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council review a complaint submitted to the City of Del Mar by a member of the public raising concerns about potential misconduct by State elected and appointed officials (Attachment A) and consider making investigative referrals to the San Diego District Attorney’s office (Attachment B) and United States Attorney for the Southern California District (Attachment C).
BACKGROUND:
On July 9, 2026, a member of the public (Debrah Barnes) submitted a letter to the City asking for the City to review “potential conflicts, relationships, and influence” concerning the City’s attempts to site affordable housing on 22nd District Agricultural Association (DAA) property and potential conflicts involving the Seaside Ridge Project (Attachment A). The letter included a summary of potential issues based on publicly available documentation and related attachments.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
The public is entitled to have confidence and trust in its public institutions and officials and to know that government decisions are being made free from conflicts of interest.
The letter from Ms. Barnes has been reviewed by staff and the City Attorney’s office and contains serious and troubling concerns. Some initial due diligence has been conducted to verify the accuracy of the cited publicly available information. Based on that review, the information provided does appear to potentially have merit and should be further investigated to ensure there has been no wrongdoing and to protect the public’s trust and interest.
The City is not an investigative agency and does not have investigative or enforcement authority over the individuals or conduct described by Ms. Barnes. As such, it is recommended that the City Council refer this matter to the San Diego District Attorney’s office and the United States Attorney for the Southern California District for review and investigation as deemed appropriate.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Letter from Debrah Barnes – July 9, 2026 Attachment B – Proposed Referral to San Diego District Attorney’s Office Attachment C – Proposed Referral to the US Federal Attorney – SoCal District 1 August 3, 2026 Item 1
The Honorable Adam Gordon
August 4, 2026
Page -2-
• Rob Bonta is the California Attorney General. Initially appointed by the Governor, he took office on April 23, 2021, was elected to his first full term in November 2022, and is currently running for reelection in the November 2026 election.
Background
Carol Lazier is the property owner of an approximately 6.9 coastal bluff-top site located in the northern portion of the City of Del Mar. Ms. Lazier has proposed a 259-unit, high density housing project on an environmentally sensitive coastal bluff which is regulated by the City’s Coastal Commission certified Local Coastal Program. The housing project is known as the “Seaside Ridge Project.”
State law requires cities to have an approved “Housing Element.” A Housing Element is a plan of action to increase affordable housing and requires a host of strategies to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The City of Del Mar has a fully compliant Housing Element.
One of the strategies in Del Mar’s Housing Element is the creation of affordable housing on District property which is owned and operated as an agency of the State under the oversight of the District Board of Directors. The City entered into an Exclusive Negotiation Rights Agreement (“ENRA”) with the DAA to explore such a proposal, which went into effect in April 2024 (Exhibit B). The State of California has provided a $1.5 million grant to investigate the feasibility of affordable housing on the Fairgrounds, and many state and local leaders have endorsed these efforts.
The location of the proposed Seaside Ridge project is currently zoned for single-family residential development at a very low density (1 unit per lot) and is one of several sites that have been identified for potential rezone to allow for higher density housing development contingent upon the outcome of the City’s Fairgrounds housing efforts. Representatives of Seaside Ridge have argued that if the Fairgrounds housing efforts fail, Ms. Lazier’s Seaside Ridge project would become a “by-right” project; meaning the City could not exercise its commonly applied land use discretionary authority over her project.
The practical consequence of a by-right project is that it greatly reduces the development timeframe and virtually eliminates any of the land use limitations a city would normally impose on a development project of this magnitude. Simply put, Ms. Lazier’s Seaside Ridge Project stands to benefit if affordable housing is not timely developed at the Fairgrounds. To that end, representatives from Seaside Ridge have regularly attended DAA Board meetings to discourage the Board from continuing to work with the City of Del Mar to site affordable housing on District property and specifically requesting that the Board cancel the ENRA between the District and City.
Another avenue to secure by-right housing development entitlement is through state housing law when a city fails to have a compliant Housing Element at the time of project application submission.
This is known as the “Builder’s Remedy” and – similar to “by-right” - it removes virtually all of a city’s discretionary authority over certain qualified housing projects. Whether the Lazier Seaside
ATTACHMENT C
12 August 3, 2026 Item 1
The Honorable Adam Gordon
August 4, 2026
Page -3-
Ridge housing project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project is highly contested and is currently being litigated between the City of Del Mar and Ms. Lazier.
Lazier, Arabo, and Guiltinan
Even though the Seaside Ridge Project is located in the City of Del Mar where the DAA has no permitting authority, Ms. Lazier, Mr. Guiltinan, and other Seaside Ridge representatives have appeared at numerous public meetings before the DAA to lobby against continuation of the ENRA and to discontinue discussions with the City of Del Mar regarding affordable housing on District property.
In addition to representing Ms. Lazier related to the Seaside Ridge development Project, Mr.
Guiltinan also represented DAA Board member Mark Arabo in March/April 2024, when Arabo purchased a home in Rancho Santa Fe, California (Exhibit C).
While Board member Arabo originally voted in favor of the ENRA, he has subsequently publicly and aggressively denounced the City’s proposal to develop affordable housing on the Fairgrounds and has sought on multiple occasions to terminate the ENRA while simultaneously praising Ms. Lazier’s Seaside Ridge Project (Exhibit D).
On September 29, 2025, during a meeting of the Board, Board member Arabo asked the City to provide a presentation to the Board at a future meeting on the Seaside Ridge project and explain why the project had not been approved. City representatives and Board Counsel explained that Arabo’s request was outside of the purview of the DAA Board and not appropriate. The City subsequently sent a letter reiterating this to the Board, Board Counsel, and the former CEO, which included a Public Records Act request for all communications between Board members and representatives of Seaside Ridge (Exhibit E).
As part of a cursory review of Ms. Barnes’ concerns and Board meeting transcripts, a summarized list of meetings where Seaside Ridge representatives were in attendance and/or comments regarding Seaside Ridge or discontinuation of the ENRA with the City by Board member Arabo is included for reference (Exhibit F). This list, taken from publicly available Board transcripts, also cites many unfounded quotes and misrepresentations by Seaside Ridge representatives and Board member Arabo regarding the City of Del Mar.
Campaign Contributions
A review by City staff of publicly available campaign contribution information reveals that, as suggested by Ms. Barnes, both DAA Board member Arabo and Mr. Guiltinan made significant campaign contributions to Rob Bonta in 2024 (Exhibit G).
In December 2025, the Attorney General sent the City of Del Mar a letter asserting that the “Builder’s Remedy” applied to Ms. Lazier’s Seaside Ridge project (Exhibit H). The City responded by informing the Attorney General that the City disagreed with his opinion because neither the facts nor the law supported this assertion.
ATTACHMENT C
13 August 3, 2026 Item 1
The Honorable Adam Gordon
August 4, 2026
Page -4-
Conclusion and Request
The public is entitled to have confidence and trust in its public institutions and officials and to know that government decisions are being made on their merits free from conflicts of interest. The allegations in Ms. Barnes’ letter are serious and, if true, troubling. At the same time, the City has neither the legal authority to enforce nor the resources to investigate them.
For these reasons, the City of Del Mar, by majority vote of the City Council, urges the District Attorney to investigate the information contained in Ms. Barnes’ letter.
Very truly yours,
DEVANEY PATE MORRIS & CAMERON, LLP
Christina M. Cameron
City Attorney
City of Del Mar
CMC/mcl
ATTACHMENT C
14 August 3, 2026 Item 1
EXHIBIT A
15 August 3, 2026 Item 1
EXHIBIT B
21 August 3, 2026 Item 1
22 August 3, 2026 Item 1
23 August 3, 2026 Item 1
24 August 3, 2026 Item 1
25 August 3, 2026 Item 1
26 August 3, 2026 Item 1
27 August 3, 2026 Item 1
28 August 3, 2026 Item 1
30 August 3, 2026 Item 1
31 August 3, 2026 Item 1
32 August 3, 2026 Item 1
33 August 3, 2026 Item 1
34 August 3, 2026 Item 1
35 August 3, 2026 Item 1
38 August 3, 2026 Item 1
EXHIBIT C
39 August 3, 2026 Item 1
EXHIBIT D
42 August 3, 2026 Item 1
Ralph T. Hicks, Esq.
[email protected]
Direct: (951) 949-4498
41955 Fourth Street, Suite 210, Temecula, CA 92590 T: (951) 262-4491 F: (951) 262-4495 DPMClaw.com September 15, 2025
VIA EMAIL & U.S. MAIL
Carlene Moore, CEO
Joshua Caplan, Legal Counsel
22nd District Agricultural Association
2260 Jimmy Durate Blvd.
Del Mar, CA 92014
Re: Correcting the Record Related to RHNA and State Ballot Initiative; Clarifying Jurisdictional Authority – Seaside Ridge; and Request for Public Records Dear Ms. Moore and Mr. Caplan,
The City of Del Mar (City) appreciated the opportunity on September 9, 2025, to present information about its certified 6th Cycle Housing Element and efforts to achieve its housing element goals to the 22nd District Agricultural Association (22nd DAA) Board. This letter follows the discussion and questions raised by the Board at their meeting.
The purpose of this letter is to: 1) correct the record pertaining to data used by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) as part of the 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation and the basis for the City’s support of a potential State ballot initiative related to “Local Control;” 2) clarify the City’s jurisdictional authority pertaining to consideration of the Seaside Ridge development proposal and express concerns regarding improperly noticed discussions concerning the Seaside Ridge project by the 22nd DAA Board; and 3) request public records related to communications between members of the Seaside Ridge development team and 22nd District Agricultural Association Board members and staff and because the Board lacks jurisdiction over the Seaside Ridge project, to caution the 22nd DAA Board of Directors against holding any further public hearings where the Seaside Ridge project is discussed or considered.
CORRECTING THE RECORD
A. 6th Cycle Housing Element – RHNA Process/Data
As previously explained to the 22nd DDA Board and staff, including in the distributed FAQ’s and presentation provided by City staff to the Board on September 9, 2025, the City of Del Mar is in no way responsible for, nor had any control over, the State Economic Development Department (EDD) data 43 August 3, 2026 Item 1
Carlene Moore, CEO
Joshua Caplan, Legal Counsel
22nd District Agricultural Association
September 15, 2025
4927-6891-6584, v. 1
used by SANDAG as part of the 6th Cycle RHNA process. To accuse the City of having provided “false” information to the Board in this regard is unfounded.
The EDD data used by SANDAG for all cities in the County did not differentiate between fulltime, part-time, and seasonal jobs. Therefore, the over 2,000 jobs reported by employers other than the 22nd DAA using the Fairgrounds address as the place of employment for activities occurring at the Fairgrounds substantially impacted and disadvantaged Del Mar during the RHNA process and resulted in a high number of housing units being assigned to the City.
This is a fact and a circumstance in which the City had no control, nor is there a remedy available to the City to address this issue as further described in the attached Del Mar City Council agenda report and related attachments, including an opinion from specialized legal counsel (Attachment A).
B. Ballot Initiative for Local Control
On July 7, 2025, the Del Mar City Council voted to support a potential 2026 State ballot initiative sponsored by Our Neighborhood Voices to restore local control over land use planning and zoning law primarily related to housing based on the City’s concerns about how State housing mandates have largely resulted in high-cost housing being developed over affordable housing. As currently proposed, the initiative will not eliminate requirements for affordable housing under state or local laws. The initiative seeks to restore local government control over land use and zoning to protect and preserve local communities’ ability to approve development projects in a manner that ensures the safety and well-being of their communities.
The Del Mar City Council has consistently affirmed its commitment to developing affordable housing to meet the declared statewide crisis by adopting multiple Housing Element Programs to facilitate affordable housing, approving multi-unit housing projects that include affordable housing, and actively working on developing lower income units on City owned property on 10th Street, the Fairgrounds, and other areas of the community as outlined in the City’s Housing Element. A copy of the Del Mar City Council agenda report with more detailed information related to this topic and the basis for the City’s support is attached for reference (Attachment B).
JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY
The proposed Seaside Ridge development projectfalls strictly within the jurisdictional authority of the City of Del Mar and not the 22nd DAA. The 22nd DAA Board has no jurisdictional authority over the Seaside Ridge project. Not only is the City the permitting agency for the Seaside Ridge project, but it is also the governmental agency responsible for housing law compliance, is the California 44 August 3, 2026 Item 1
Carlene Moore, CEO
Joshua Caplan, Legal Counsel
22nd District Agricultural Association
September 15, 2025
4927-6891-6584, v. 1
Environmental Quality Act lead agency, and the party responsible for amending its Local Coastal Program in compliance with the California Coastal Act. The 22nd DAA has none of these regulatory obligations and hosting hearings for the benefit of the Seaside Ridge applicant is improper.
Noticing an agenda item for consideration of the Seaside Ridge development or considering information regarding Seaside Ridge or other private development projects that are not within the 22nd DAA’s authority as part of a decision whether to continue activities with the City under the Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (ENRA) prior to the completion of the development feasibility studies or other activities under the ENRA that are intended to inform a final decision by the Board would be inappropriate and potentially create the risk of legal exposure for the 22nd DAA.
The Seaside Ridge development application submittal, the first step in a series of actions leading to a “shovel ready” project, has been deemed incomplete and not in compliance with State law by the City as the regulatory agency with jurisdictional authority and responsibility over development activity in the City of Del Mar. More information is available on the City’s website and will be discussed in detail at an upcoming City Council appeal hearing to be held on September 22, 2025. Board members who are interested in better understanding this issue are encouraged to attend the hearing or tune in remotely.
The City will not be attending a future DAA Board meeting to discuss the Seaside Ridge matter, nor should the City or Seaside Ridge applicant be requested to do so, for the reasons cited above and the Board should exercise caution about accepting any assertions by representatives of Seaside Ridge about their proposed project and the City’s actions to date as facts.
Public Records Act Request
As stated above, this letter also serves as a California Public Record Act request. Please provide all records and communications including but not limited to calendar appointments, text messages, emails, notes, letters, recordings, or other documents or records related to communications between any and all members representing the Seaside Ridge project team, in any capacity, and members of the 22nd DAA Board or staff. Should text messages or personal emails include discussions between a Board Member and a Seaside Ridge team member then those records should be considered disclosable records. The Seaside team may include but not be limited to the following individuals, or anyone acting on their behalf:
1. Whitney Hodges
2. Brooke Miller
3. Carol Lazier
45 August 3, 2026 Item 1
Carlene Moore, CEO
Joshua Caplan, Legal Counsel
22nd District Agricultural Association
September 15, 2025
4927-6891-6584, v. 1
4. Joesph Smith
5. Darren Pudgil
6. Phil Rath
7. Brian Guiltinan
We look forward to continuing our mutual efforts to address the critical low-income housing needs of the region and working constructively with the Board and its staff to be part of the solution to the State’s housing crisis.
Sincerely,
Ralph T. Hicks
Assistant City Attorney
City of Del Mar
Enclosures:
Attachment A – City Council Agenda Report – 6th Cycle Housing Element RHNA Process Attachment B – City Council Agenda Report – Support for State Ballot Initiative Re: Local Control cc: 22nd DAA Board
Del Mar City Council
Leslie Devaney, City Attorney
Ashley Jones, City Manager
Governor’s Office – San Diego
Catherine Blakespear, State Senator District 38
Tasha Boerner, State Assemblymember District 77
Terra Lawson-Remer, San Diego County Supervisor
Solana Beach City Council and City Manager
46 August 3, 2026 Item 1
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Deputy Mayor Terry Gaasterland and Councilmember Tracy Martinez, City Council Housing Subcommittee
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: May 20, 2024
SUBJECT: Concerns Related to State Economic Development Department (EDD) Jobs Data and Del Mar 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Allocation
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council Housing Subcommittee, Deputy Mayor Gaasterland and Councilmember Martinez, recommend that the City Council receive information and discuss concerns related to the EDD jobs data for Del Mar and the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA allocation.
BACKGROUND:
Consistent with the provisions of California Government Code Section 65584, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) undertook a State mandated process for the 6th Cycle Housing Element (2021-2029) to identify and approve the methodology for and allocation of 171,685 housing units identified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as part of the 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process for the San Diego region. This multi-year process started in 2017, followed by adoption of the RHNA methodology by the SANDAG Board in 2019, and Board adoption of the final RHNA allocation in 2020.
The RHNA allocation methodology is required to comply with state housing laws, and primarily focused on three key criteria: proximity to transit; jobs/housing relationship; and equity. The way that SANDAG counted the number of jobs from the EDD jobs data (which does not differentiate between full-time and part-time/seasonal jobs) is consistent with how other councils and associations of governments have counted jobs, including the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the basis for which is more fully described in the legal memo included as part of the legal analysis discussed later in this report.
Cities were required to submit their City Council approved 6th Cycle Housing Element reflecting future actions to implement their RHNA allocation and comply with housing laws to HCD by April 15, 2021 for State certification review.
1 May 20, 2024 Item 13
ATTACHMENT A
47 August 3, 2026 Item 1
City Council Agenda Report
Del Mar RHNA Allocation/EDD Data Concerns
May 20, 2024
More information about SANDAG RHNA process can be found at:https://www.sandag.org/- /media/SANDAG/Documents/PDF/projects-and-programs/regional-initiatives/housing-landuse/6th-cycle-regional-housing-needs-assessment-plan-2020-07-10.pdf.
As part of the RHNA process, SANDAG identified 4,484 jobs for the City of Del Mar, which included full-time and part-time/seasonal employment. At that time, much concern was expressed by the Del Mar City Council, staff, and community about the number of jobs that had been identified for Del Mar, as it seemed very high for such a small City with mostly retail/visitor serving jobs and no large-scale employers other than the Del Mar Fairgrounds.
As will be discussed in greater detail below, the City later learned that the jobs data for the region, and resulting 163 housing unit RHNA allocation for Del Mar, was primarily based on information provided by the State Economic Development Department (EDD).
Jurisdictions were provided the opportunity to appeal the unit allocation for their area as part of the RHNA process; however, Del Mar was unable to take advantage of the appeal process because at that time the City did not have the documentation needed to challenge the methodology/data used by SANDAG to determine the RHNA allocation for Del Mar.
Therefore, the City’s concerns were unable to be addressed and the City was required to plan for the 163 housing units identified for Del Mar as part of the 6th Cycle RHNA process. The City’s total allocation also increased to 175 housing units based on a carry-over of 12 unmet low-income units assigned in the 5th cycle. This is a lot to achieve for an almost built out City will high land costs and very little land available for development.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
On February 7, 2022, the City Council authorized then Councilmembers Terry Gaasterland and Tracy Martinez to work with City staff to request the jobs data and related information used by SANDAG to calculate the City of Del Mar’s jobs count and subsequent RHNA allocation. Requests for information were made to SANDAG in March and December 2022, to which SANDAG responded by explaining that the EDD data was obtained through a required confidentiality agreement and could not be shared with the City directly. However, in February and March 2023, SANDAG data staff met with the City and provided an overview of the process and methodology for evaluating the jobs data without providing any EDD confidential data specifics. While they acknowledged that it isn’t perfect, the EDD data used is considered the “gold standard” for jobs data.
Following the February 2023 meeting with SANDAG data staff, the City obtained a copy of the SANDAG/EDD agreement, which specifies the timeframes and data sets that were used by SANDAG as part of the RHNA process. The City requested the same data from EDD and entered into the required EDD confidentiality agreement, which enabled staff to obtain the necessary EDD jobs data for Del Mar in April 2023.
EDD Data Review & Observations/Findings
As was used by SANDAG, the City obtained EDD Census of Employment and Wages data files for years 2017–2022. A review of the confidential EDD data provided the following important insights:
248 May 20, 2024 August 3, 2026 Item 13 Item 1
City Council Agenda Report
Del Mar RHNA Allocation/EDD Data Concerns
May 20, 2024
➢ The EDD identifies job location by jurisdictional boundary, not postal code. ➢ EDD jobs are not differentiated between full-time and part-time/seasonal. This allowed for part-time and seasonal employment at the Fairgrounds related to one-time (music/entertainment events, etc.) and short-term events (County Fair, horse racing season, etc.) to be counted the same as full-time, year-round jobs. Counting jobs this way is also consistent with the methodology used by SANDAG and other California councils/associations of government as part of the RHNA process. ➢ SANDAG only looked at 3rd Quarter data for each year, which made it nearly impossible for SANDAG to identify jobs for one-time or short-term events occurring at the Del Mar Fairgrounds.
➢ Seasonal jobs can be easily identified as varying from nearly 0 in one month to a much larger number in another month for a given business.
➢ The EDD data indicated that there was an average of 4,911 jobs identified for Del Mar per quarter during the identified time frame. Of those, SANDAG counted 4,484 jobs for Del Mar after quality controlling the data.
➢ SANDAG quality controlled the data by filtering out duplicates; jobs outside the City’s jurisdictional boundary; out of state employers; and corporate headquarters. ➢ Over half the jobs that were counted for Del Mar were at the Fairgrounds, and 90% (approximately 1,810) of the Fairgrounds jobs were part-time/seasonal. ➢ Del Mar has NO jurisdiction/authority over the Fairgrounds and Del Mar's ordinances do not apply to the Fairgrounds, including noise and parking. ➢ Without jobs attributable to the Fairgrounds, Del Mar has about 2,000 jobs.
➢ More than 5% of Del Mar's registered businesses are registered at PO Boxes and contribute over 10% of the jobs.
➢ More than 25% of Del Mar's registered businesses are registered to homes and contribute over 10% of the overall jobs for Del Mar. These jobs were reported to the EDD using private residential addresses in zones that do not include commercial activities as an allowed use. Some of these companies reported over 20 employees at the private residential address.
➢ A known closed business that no longer has a location in the City was being misreported with nearly 100 jobs in Del Mar, which has now been corrected with EDD.
Following the City’s review of the EDD data, observations and concerns were shared with SANDAG data staff in June and August 2023. SANDAG staff were very receptive to the feedback provided by the City and, as a result, will no longer be using just one quarter of 349 May 20, 2024 August 3, 2026 Item 13 Item 1
City Council Agenda Report
Del Mar RHNA Allocation/EDD Data Concerns
May 20, 2024
annual data for their analyses and will expand the data set to include all four quarters of the calendar year. After receiving the City’s insight, SANDAG expressed a new understanding that the general data assumptions and methodology used across the County had the unintended consequence of disproportionally impacting Del Mar in ways that larger cities would not be affected due to our small size. As such, SANDAG expressed a willingness to allow Del Mar and other cities to obtain and review the EDD data and raise issues and concerns prior to the job numbers being finalized as part of future RHNA cycles.
Potential Remedies Explored
In November 2023 and thereafter, City staff and Councilmembers reached out to the SANDAG Board and Executive Leadership (Attachment A) and State representatives Assemblymember Tasha Boerner and Senator Toni Atkins to discuss possible remedies to address the City’s concerns. Each expressed a strong interest and support for ensuring that the methodology is addressed so that Del Mar is not disproportionately affected again in future cycles. However, all equally cautioned that it would be nearly impossible to make any changes to the current 6
th Cycle RHNA. This is because the SANDAG 6th Cycle RHNA methodology and process have been approved and certified by the SANDAG Board and State HCD; units have already been allocated to all the cities in the San region; and housing elements reflecting the RHNA allocations for those jurisdictions have been adopted and certified. The majority of these actions occurred 3-4 years ago, with cities in the San Diego region now working hard to implement their certified housing elements. However, these discussions are still timely and important as planning for the 7th Cycle RHNA process is expected to begin in 2025 or 2026.
The City Council additionally explored whether there was any legal remedy that could be pursued by the City and sought guidance from the City Attorney’s office and special counsel Pam Lee, who is a partner with Aleshire & Wynder, LLP. A copy of the memo provided by Attorney Lee is included with this agenda item as Attachment B. As further detailed in the memo, it is not recommended that the City pursue legal action as a remedy to address 6th Cycle RHNA process concerns due to the low likelihood of success and the potential negative ramifications to the City should the City’s current 6
th Cycle Housing Element be decertified by
HCD as a result.
Next Steps
City staff and Council representatives will continue to work with SANDAG and the City’s State representatives to pursue changes to the RHNA methodology and process to ensure that the City of Del Mar is not disproportionately affected during the next RHNA cycle. As part of the next RHNA cycle, Del Mar will also obtain and review the EDD jobs data well in advance so concerns can be raised and addressed prior to the RHNA methodology being approved.
It should also be noted that on March 22, 2024, the SANDAG Board hosted a discussion regarding the RHNA process with HCD representatives, during which the City of Del Mar and other jurisdictions were able to share their concerns and frustrations about the RHNA process (https://youtu.be/arKeg7IFk7w?si=IDqfOp-kmoVQLMOF&t=2728). 450 May 20, 2024 August 3, 2026 Item 13 Item 1
City Council Agenda Report
Del Mar RHNA Allocation/EDD Data Concerns
May 20, 2024
Following the SANDAG Board meeting, and in accordance with their statutory requirement to assess and recommend improvements to the RHNA process, HCD recently released a report that outlines the stakeholder engagement process and statutory/regulatory suggested reforms to improve RHNA before Cycle 7. The report, entitled California’s Housing Future 2040: The Next Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), outlines dozens of suggested reforms to improve the RHNA methodology, regional determination, and compliance process.
Notable suggested reforms include the following, many of which align with issues/concerns that Del Mar has raised:
1. Requiring that the RHNA determination and housing element compliance process incorporates the regional homeless needs. This will likely be implemented through the integration of new extremely low income (ELI) categories and associated benchmarks that regional and local governments would need to assess and meet.
2. Broadening the scope of eligible housing types that can be credited within the RHNA process. This focus is targeting the group quarter living situations that are common for individuals within the ELI categories and may be at risk of homelessness. Additional categories of housing that the report suggests be incorporated are suite-style college housing (not dorms that meet quarter definitions) and other group-style homes that serve seniors. (excludes emergency shelters)
3. Requiring COGs to share the datasets they plan to use within their methodology with relevant local jurisdictions.
4. Amending the appeals process to clarify that the change in circumstance appeals criteria is only applicable when the change in question disproportionately impacts the jurisdiction that is the subject of the appeal.
5. Aligning RHNA with Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Sustainable Communities Strategies Growth (SCS) growth projections.
6. Simplifying the RHNA determination and allocation process via statute clean-up language and process. This would include transparency and communication requirements between HCD and jurisdictions, more clearly defined data sources, and refining various determination factors.
Overall, HCD’s recommendations are likely to be considered and incorporated into legislative and budget proposals over the next few sessions prior to the onset of the RHNA 7 Cycle.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact or action to be taken by the Council related to this agenda item.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Letter to SANDAG dated November 15, 2023 Attachment B – Legal Memo from Pam Lee, Aleshire & Wynder, LLP 551 May 20, 2024 August 3, 2026 Item 13 Item 1
1050 Camino Del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 | 858.755.9313 | www.delmar.ca.us November 15, 2023
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) SENT VIA EMAIL SANDAG Board & Executive Leadership
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
Re: Observations and Findings Regarding City of Del Mar EDD Data/RHNA Allocation
Dear SANDAG Board & Executive Leadership,
For almost a year now, the City of Del Mar has been working with SANDAG data staff and the State of California Employment Development Department (EDD) to evaluate and better understand the jobs data that was used by SANDAG to calculate the City of Del Mar’s jobs data and related Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element.
After entering into an EDD required confidentiality agreement, the City obtained the necessary EDD Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data files for Quarter 3 (Q3) of Years 2017 – 2022, of which data from Q3 2017 was used by SANDAG to calculate the City of Del Mar’s jobs data. The data contained many important elements including unique identifiers, ownership codes, NAICS codes, business names, business addresses, employment figures, and more, which allowed us to delve into the intricacies of Del Mar’s jobs data.
A thorough review of the data by Del Mar provided several important observations and findings, as further summarized below. Due to the confidential nature of the data provided by EDD, we are only able to provide summarized, high-level information. It is important to note that the EDD identifies job locations by jurisdictional boundary (not postal code), and jobs are not differentiated between full-time and part-time/seasonal.
High Level Overview of Del Mar Jobs
• In 2017, the EDD identified 405 businesses with addresses in the City of Del Mar. • The EDD data indicates that there was an average of 4,911 jobs identified for Del Mar during Quarter 3 of 2017.
• Of those, SANDAG counted 4,484 jobs for Del Mar as part of the RHNA allocation process.
• SANDAG quality controlled the data by filtering out duplicates; jobs outside the City’s jurisdictional boundary; out of state employers; and corporate headquarters.
Fairgrounds Jobs
• Over half the jobs identified for Del Mar were at the Fairgrounds, and 90% of the Fairgrounds jobs were part-time/seasonal.
652 May 20, 2024 August 3, 2026 Item 13 Item 1
SANDAG EDD Data & RHNA Methodology
November 15, 2023
• Seasonal jobs can be easily identified as varying from nearly 0 jobs in one month to a much larger number in another month for a given business. • Del Mar has NO jurisdiction/authority over the Fairgrounds and Del Mar's ordinances do not apply to the Fairgrounds, including noise and parking. • Without jobs attributable to the Fairgrounds, Del Mar has about 2,000 jobs (less than half of the 4,484 jobs counted by SANDAG for the RHNA allocation).
The majority of the part-time/seasonal jobs at the Fairgrounds are related to special events, from small one-to-three-day events throughout the year to large events like the annual Fair or horseracing season. Many of the special event vendors and contractors live in other parts of San Diego or the State or they come from out of state to work the event. As an example, vendors/contractors who work the annual San Diego County Fair work a circuit of fair events in the State, and are likely be counted in each jurisdiction that they work in.
Post Office Boxes
More than 5% of Del Mar's businesses are registered to post office boxes and contribute over 10% of the jobs for Del Mar. Living in or owning a business in Del Mar is not required in order to have a post office box in Del Mar. A review of the data indicated that many of the Del Mar post office boxes were attributable to businesses that are not actually located in Del Mar, causing issues with the accuracy of the data and driving up the number of jobs for Del Mar.
Home Addresses for Registered Businesses
More than 25% of Del Mar's registered businesses are registered to homes and contribute over 10% of Del Mar’s jobs. Based on a review of the data, there were many home addresses in Del Mar that were being used as the mailing address for a business, but the actual business and its employees are not physically located in Del Mar. Again, this affected the data and drove up the jobs numbers for Del Mar.
Erroneous Data
A known closed business that has not been located in Del Mar since for over 10 years, has been consistently misreported with nearly 100 jobs in Del Mar (2% of Del Mar’s overall jobs). The City is taking steps to correct this data with the EDD.
In June and August 2023, we shared our findings, observations, and concerns with SANDAG data staff. We appreciate SANDAG staff’s willingness to engage constructively with us and take our feedback into consideration. We were pleased to learn that SANDAG has expanded its EDD data set to include all four quarters of the calendar year, rather than just the third quarter, and has recognized the need to adjust data assumptions and methodologies to account for the disproportionate impact of the data on smaller cities like Del Mar.
Moving forward, we recommend that SANDAG consider the following:
753 May 20, 2024 August 3, 2026 Item 13 Item 1
SANDAG EDD Data & RHNA Methodology
November 15, 2023
1. Collaboration: We are encouraged by SANDAG's commitment to collaboration and transparency. We propose the establishment of a continuous dialogue between SANDAG and the City of Del Mar to address data-related issues promptly and effectively.
2. Regular Data Review: We recommend a systematic process for Del Mar and other cities to review EDD data and raise any issues or concerns before the jobs numbers are finalized in future RHNA cycles.
3. Improved Data Accuracy: In light of the data discrepancies we identified, we request that SANDAG take steps to ensure the accuracy of its data sources and methodologies to reflect the unique characteristics and challenges faced by smaller cities like Del Mar.
4. Policy Considerations: We encourage SANDAG to consider the potential policy implications of its data and methodologies, particularly concerning RHNA allocations for smaller jurisdictions.
This letter is intended to serve as a formal record of our concerns, findings, and recommendations. We believe that SANDAG, as a regional authority, can benefit from a RHNA approach that takes into consideration the diverse needs and circumstances of all the cities it serves. We look forward to a constructive and ongoing partnership to address the concerns we have raised and identify opportunities to ensure the accuracy of the data and jobs numbers for the current and future RHNA cycles.
We are requesting a formal meeting with SANDAG executive staff to discuss our findings and potential next steps. To schedule a time to meet, or for questions/additional information, please contact Del Mar City Manager Ashley Jones at [email protected] or (858) 704-3640.
Sincerely,
Tracy Martinez
Mayor
cc: Del Mar City Council
Ashley Jones, Del Mar City Manager
Clem Brown, Del Mar Assistant City Manager
Daniel Flyte, SANDAG Principal Analyst – Data Governance Manager Grace Chung, SANDAG Principal Researcher
854 May 20, 2024 August 3, 2026 Item 13 Item 1
MEMORANDUM
01411.0002/983057.2
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE DEL MAR CITY COUNCIL
ASHLEY JONES, CITY MANAGER
LESLIE DEVANEY, CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: PAM K. LEE, SPECIAL LEGAL COUNSEL
DATE: MAY 14, 2024
RE: JOBS DATA AND THE CITY’S HOUSING ELEMENT
A. Background Information
For over 18 months now, the City of Del Mar has been working with the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) to obtain and evaluate the jobs data that SANDAG used to calculate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for each city within SANDAG’s jurisdiction, including the City of Del Mar.
When the City obtained the relevant job data in early 2023, it conducted a thorough review to determine whether the City’s RHNA was accurately calculated. The City learned that 4,484 jobs were attributed to the City of Del Mar, even after filtering out duplicate jobs, jobs outside the City’s jurisdictional boundary, out of state employers, and corporate headquarters. Of the 4,484 jobs, over half were derived from fairgrounds employment, and 90% of those jobs were either part-time or temporary in nature. Based on an independent analysis, if the part-time/temporary jobs were omitted from the calculation, the City’s RHNA could be reduced by almost half.
Because this data was not provided to the City when requested prior to the finalization of the RHNA process, the City could not and did not appeal its RHNA to SANDAG as part of the RHNA appeal process, per Government Code Section 65584.05(b). Accordingly, the City cannot appeal its RHNA now.
B. Should the City File A Lawsuit Against SANDAG or HCD for the City’s Overinflated RHNA?
Any lawsuit filed by the City against SANDAG for its erroneous job data in determining the City’s RHNA allocation would be pre-empted by and dismissed under City of Irvine v. Southern California Assn. of Governments, (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 506, and City of Coronado, et al. v. San Diego Association of Governments, (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 21. Both the City of Irvine and City of Coronado cases held that the court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a city’s claim against a council of governments/association of governments because (i) the city did not have an enforceable right against the council/association regarding the determination of RHNA allocations, (ii) the RHNA administrative appeals process under Government Code Section 65584.05 provides the remedy for a city to raise objections to an allocation, and (iii) the State legislature previously deleted a thenexisting statutory provision that authorized judicial review. 955 May 20, 2024 August 3, 2026 Item 13 Item 1
JOBS DATA AND THE CITY’S HOUSING ELEMENT
MAY 14, 2024
01411.0002/983057.2
A lawsuit filed against California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for the overinflated RHNA would likely meet the same fate. This is because HCD could successfully argue that (i) HCD had no part in determining the City’s RHNA based on any job data, and (ii) HCD reviewed the job data on a regional rather than individual municipal basis and did not independently assess (nor did it have the authority to independently assess) the accuracy of such data.
In addition, the way SANDAG counted the number of jobs is consistent with how other councils of governments, such as the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), have also counted the total number of jobs for the region and for allocations for each municipality. The job data and how it intersects with housing needs was not further delineated by full-time, part-time, or seasonal/temporary categories in determining the RHNA methodology or allocations.
1 So if a lawsuit were to challenge the accuracy of job data in calculating the RHNA, the lawsuit would require HCD, all councils of government, and counties (that are not part of a council of government) to re-analyze the job data for all jurisdictions in California. A court will most likely find that such an undertaking requires a legislative fix, rather than a judicial fix on an ad hoc basis.
Even if a re-analysis were to occur, it would not guarantee that the methodology or the housing numbers would come out differently than before. This is because any lawsuit, even if successfully challenged, would require the court to give deference to SANDAG, City, or HCD in utilizing the job data and coming up with revised housing numbers – in other words, the court does not have the legal authority to dictate what the RHNA housing methodology or housing numbers would be. Moreover, any fix would most likely be on a prospective, rather than retrospective, basis.
C. Should the City on Its Own Revise and Self-Certify Its Housing Element? The City could revise its Housing Element using the updated job data (excluding the part-time or temporary jobs) and the same RHNA methodology implemented by SANDAG to come up with reduced RHNA for the City, in all relevant income categories. However, it should be noted that any draft amendment to the Housing Element must be submitted for review to HCD, who has legal authority monitor a City’s compliance with Housing Element law.2 1 See, e.g., Gov. Code § 65584.04(e)(1), which requires each jurisdiction to include the existing and projected jobs in total, including the number of low-wage jobs, regardless of the job type (part-time, full-time, temporary, etc.) and analyze the jobs’ relationship to housing. SCAG used California Employment Development Department’s (EDD) jobs report by industry, as well as 2010 Census information and American Community Survey data for all job types. (SCAG Final RHNA Methodology, Mar 3, 2020, p. 7.) SANDAG used job data from EDD and the 2010 Census’ Longitudinal EmployerHousehold Dynamics Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) data. SANDAG’s data consists of “all job types and includes jobs that are classified as a primary source of income, which can be part-time or full-time, year-round or seasonal,” in order to determine how much housing is needed. (SANDAG 6th Cycle RHNA Plan, Jul. 10, 2020, p. 20.)
2 Gov. Code § 65585(b).
1056 May 20, 2024 August 3, 2026 Item 13 Item 1
JOBS DATA AND THE CITY’S HOUSING ELEMENT
MAY 14, 2024
01411.0002/983057.2
HCD will vigorously oppose any reduction in the City’s RHNA allocation based on omission of parttime or temporary jobs from the job data. Recent case law regarding housing3 has been very deferential towards HCD in interpreting State housing laws liberally to promote housing and affordable housing development and restrictive against local laws that limit local governance in land use and zoning. HCD will most likely de-certify the City’s Housing Element if the City revised its Housing Element to include a reduced RHNA number.4 A de-certification of the City’s Housing Element, would mean that the City, according to HCD, no longer has a compliant Housing Element.
This would likely open the door to Builder’s Remedy project applications5, which would allow nonzoning compliant housing projects to be considered for approval for development during the time period the Housing Element is deemed non-compliant or de-certified. Furthermore, with a decertified Housing Element, the City would also be subject to a streamlined ministerial approval process for other housing development projects.
Moreover, because the City would be re-analyzing its Housing Element using different definitions of “jobs” than other jurisdictions in the State have used, the City would be inviting other jurisdictions as well as housing advocacy groups to potentially file lawsuits against the City for non-compliance with State housing element laws. As stated above, no other council of government or county has utilized the job data in a way being proposed by the City (i.e., to eliminate or discount part-time/temporary jobs in determining RHNA), so the RHNA methodology would be very different than what has historically been done. Based on the novel approach and how other jurisdictions utilized local job data, it is highly unlikely a court would agree with how the City would want to re-apply its job data to the current Housing Element.
As a result, the disadvantages greatly outweigh any potential benefits the City would receive in revising its RHNA and Housing Element based on the a new job data analysis. [END]
3 For example, the appellate courts in Anderson v. City of San Jose (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 683 and Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 277 have held that the State’s interest in promoting access to housing and affordable housing are paramount, considering the State’s current housing and affordable housing crisis, resulting in very deferential treatment towards laws that promote such state interests, at the expense of local land use and zoning. 4 Notably, HCD is actively pursuing Housing Element de-certifications. In March 2024, HCD decertified the Town of Portola Valley’s Housing Element, less than two months after it had been certified by HCD. While nothing changed between HCD’s certification of Portola Valley’s Housing Element on January 31, 2024 and its de-certification on March 26, 2024, HCD cited that the town was not working fast enough to implement its housing programs as required under its Housing Element. 5 Gov. Code § 65589.5(d).
1157 May 20, 2024 August 3, 2026 Item 13 Item 1
May 20, 2024 Item 13 58 August 3, 2026 Item 1
Current Openings
Thanks for checking out our job openings. See something that interests you? Apply here. Additional San Diego County Fair Job Opportunities
Del Mar
California
119-Day Temporary
Agriculture and Education
Assistant Coordinator - Exhibits
Del Mar
California
Agriculture and Education
119-Day Temporary
Exhibit Attendant
Del Mar
California
Agriculture and Education
119-Day Temporary
Exhibit Attendant - Livestock Barn Crew
Del Mar
California
Agriculture and Education
119-Day Temporary
May 20, 2024 Item 13 59 August 3, 2026 Item 1
Exhibit Attendant Lead
Del Mar
California
Agriculture and Education
119-Day Temporary
Guest Services Representative
Del Mar
California
Agriculture and Education
119-Day Temporary
Laborer
Del Mar
California
Agriculture and Education
119-Day Temporary
Box Office
Assistant Coordinator- Cashiers
Del Mar
California
Box Office
119-Day Temporary
Cashier- Midway Carnival
Del Mar
California
Box Office
119-Day Temporary
Cashier- Parking
Del Mar
California
Box Office
119-Day Temporary
Cashier- Ticketing
Del Mar
May 20, 2024 Item 13 60 August 3, 2026 Item 1
California
Box Office
119-Day Temporary
Facilities
Carpenter
Del Mar
California
Facilities
119-Day Temporary
Electrician
Del Mar
California
Facilities
119-Day Temporary
Janitor
Del Mar
California
Facilities
119-Day Temporary
Laborer
Del Mar
California
Facilities
119-Day Temporary
Mechanic
Del Mar
California
Facilities
119-Day Temporary
Painter
Del Mar
California
Facilities
May 20, 2024 Item 13 61 August 3, 2026 Item 1
119-Day Temporary
Plumber
Del Mar
California
Facilities
119-Day Temporary
Welder
Del Mar
California
Facilities
119-Day Temporary
Finance
Auditor - Concessions
Del Mar
California
Finance
119-Day Temporary
Production
Cart Driver
Del Mar
California
Production
119-Day Temporary
Event Technician
Del Mar
California
Production
119-Day Temporary
Production Coordinator
Del Mar
California
Production
119-Day Temporary
May 20, 2024 Item 13 62 August 3, 2026 Item 1
Stagehand
Del Mar
California
Production
119-Day Temporary
Public Safety
Ambassador
Del Mar
California
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
Assistant Coordinator- Dispatcher
Del Mar
California
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
Cart Driver- Shuttles
Del Mar
California
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
Clerk- Medical
Del Mar
California
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
Dispatcher
Del Mar
California
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
May 20, 2024 Item 13 63 August 3, 2026 Item 1
Incident Investigator
Del Mar
California
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
Parking Attendant
Del Mar
California
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
Parking Attendant Lead
Del Mar
California
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
Public Safety Associate
Del Mar
California
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
Shuttle Ambassador
Del Mar
California
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
Shuttles- Assistant Coordinator
Del Mar
California
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
Traffic Controller
Del Mar
California
May 20, 2024 Item 13 64 August 3, 2026 Item 1
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
Tram Driver
Del Mar
California
Public Safety
119-Day Temporary
Sales and Rentals
Assistant Coordinator- Sales and Rentals
Del Mar
California
Sales and Rentals
119-Day Temporary
OPEN POSITIONS
Agriculture and Education
Assistant Coordinator - ExhibitsDel Mar, California
Exhibit AttendantDel Mar, California
Exhibit Attendant - Livestock Barn CrewDel Mar, California Exhibit Attendant LeadDel Mar, California
Guest Services RepresentativeDel Mar, California
LaborerDel Mar, California
Box Office
Assistant Coordinator- CashiersDel Mar, California
Cashier- Midway CarnivalDel Mar, California
Cashier- ParkingDel Mar, California
Cashier- TicketingDel Mar, California
Facilities
CarpenterDel Mar, California
ElectricianDel Mar, California
JanitorDel Mar, California
LaborerDel Mar, California
Mechanic Del Mar, California
PainterDel Mar, California
PlumberDel Mar, California
May 20, 2024 Item 13 65 August 3, 2026 Item 1
WelderDel Mar, California
Finance
Auditor - ConcessionsDel Mar, California
Production
Cart DriverDel Mar, California
Event TechnicianDel Mar, California
Production CoordinatorDel Mar, California
StagehandDel Mar, California
Public Safety
AmbassadorDel Mar, California
Assistant Coordinator- DispatcherDel Mar, California
Cart Driver- ShuttlesDel Mar, California
Clerk- MedicalDel Mar, California
DispatcherDel Mar, California
Incident Investigator Del Mar, California
Parking AttendantDel Mar, California
Parking Attendant LeadDel Mar, California
Public Safety AssociateDel Mar, California
Shuttle AmbassadorDel Mar, California
Shuttles- Assistant Coordinator Del Mar, California
Traffic ControllerDel Mar, California
Tram DriverDel Mar, California
Sales and Rentals
Assistant Coordinator- Sales and RentalsDel Mar, California
Additional San Diego County Fair Job OpportunitiesDel Mar, California Powered by
May 20, 2024 Item 13 66 August 3, 2026 Item 1
May 20, 2024 Item 13 67 August 3, 2026 Item 1
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: City Councilmembers
FROM: Mayor Terry Gaasterland and Deputy Mayor Tracy Martinez DATE: July 7, 2025
SUBJECT: Resolution Supporting a 2026 State Ballot Initiative Sponsored by Our Neighborhood Voices to Restore Local Authority Over Land Use Planning & Zoning Law Related to Housing
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Mayor Gaasterland and Deputy Mayor Martinez recommend the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) in support of a 2026 State ballot initiative sponsored by Our Neighborhood Voices to restore local control over land use planning and zoning law primarily related to housing.
BACKGROUND:
Sacramento lawmakers have passed over 400 laws in the last eight years alone, stripping away local control over development and allowing large developers to bypass nearly all local rules. The City of Del Mar, among many other local government agencies in the State, has been negatively affected by and voiced opposition to the State’s continued legislative overreach and erosion of local control and land use authority.
The majority of these new laws usurp the authority of local jurisdictions, including city councils, county boards of supervisors, planning departments, and mayoral offices, among others, to determine for themselves the land use, development, and planning policies that best suit their communities and residents, and instead impose “one-size-fits-all” mandates that fail to account for the unique needs and differences of local jurisdictions throughout the State.
Most of the new State housing laws do not provide any incentives or requirements lower or moderate income workforce housing, but instead impose mandates that incentivize real estate speculation and the construction of unneeded market rate, above market rate, and luxury housing on a theory of “trickle down” economics, thereby eliminating the authority and ability of local jurisdictions to implement effective policies to create more affordable housing and affirmatively further fair housing practices.
The State’s “trickle down” approach to housing has demonstrably failed to produce the needed stock of lower and moderate-income housing for working Californians, instead 1 July 7, 2025 Item 18
ATTACHMENT B
68 August 3, 2026 Item 1
City Council Agenda Report
Resolution Supporting Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative July 7, 2025
pushing millions of working individuals and families into housing insecurity, defined as individuals and families who spend 50% or more of their monthly income on housing.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
The City of Del Mar has strongly advocated for the critically important ability of local jurisdictions to determine for themselves, based on their constituents’ and residents’ needs, which projects require review beyond ministerial approval; what off-street parking requirements are appropriate for different neighborhoods; what housing plans are appropriate for those neighborhoods; what zoning should be applied to those neighborhoods; what restrictions to place in high fire danger severity zones and other sensitive areas; what methods are required to preserve coastal resources; and what types of housing are needed and appropriate.
The State mandated 6th Cycle Housing Element resulted in the built-out City of Del Mar, with a population of less than 4,000 and developable land totaling less than 2 square miles, being allocated 175 new housing units as part of the related Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) process. The number of units imposed on the City bears no rational relationship to the City of Del Mar’s or San Diego County’s actual housing needs, and amounts to an arbitrary and capricious state mandate. Being required to produce this high number of units forces the City to approve development in areas inappropriate and/or potentially dangerous for housing.
Construction of new unneeded and inappropriate market rate, above market rate, and luxury housing as required by the State via RHNA, places untenable and unsustainable stresses on local infrastructure, including but not limited to schools, law enforcement, and fire resources, sanitation, roads, public transit, and water and power.
By failing to appropriate funds for necessary infrastructure upgrades, including but not limited to new schools and increased resources for law enforcement, fire, sanitation, roads, public transit, and water and power, the state mandated sixth cycle RHNA units are an unfunded state mandate that violates Article XIIIB, section 6 of the Constitution of the State of California.
As such, it is critically important to empower local governmental entities to assess and respond to the unique needs of their communities and neighborhoods, and object to the proliferation of State legislation and sixth cycle RHNA mandates that deprives local governments of that ability.
Our Neighborhood Voices is a non-profit, grass roots organization that is sponsoring a 2026 State ballot initiative to restore local control to municipalities by amending the California State Constitution. Previous individual efforts at the grassroots level or as individual cities have led to the understanding that cities will need to create a coalition to support efforts to restore local control to municipalities in the State of California.
The stated purpose of the proposed initiative is to protect the ability of local communities to make local land use planning and zoning decisions, and to clarify the process to resolve conflicts between current or future state and local land use planning and zoning laws. This constitutional amendment is expressly intended to authorize local land use planning and 2 July 7, 2025 Item 18 69 August 3, 2026 Item 1
City Council Agenda Report
Resolution Supporting Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative July 7, 2025
zoning law to override conflicting state law while ensuring that specified laws remain in full force and effect.
In line with the Council’s goal to restore and protect local control, the City of Del Mar can join community leaders and other cities across California by adopting the attached Resolution (Attachment A) in support of the Our Neighborhood Voices proposed constitutional amendment (Exhibit A to Attachment A) intended to restore local control in California.
Endorsement of the initiative by the Del Mar City Council will assist in getting the initiative onto the 2026 State ballot.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The action being considered by the City Council is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a “project” under Section 15378(b)(5) of CEQA Guidelines because the action involves an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in the direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
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 Supporting Our Neighborhood Voices Local Authority Ballot Initiative to Amend Article IX of the Constitution of the State of California to Make Zoning, Development, and Land Use Matters of Local Authority Exhibit A to Attachment A- Text of proposed constitutional amendment 3 July 7, 2025 Item 18 70 August 3, 2026 Item 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF THE “OUR NEIGHBORHOOD VOICES”
BALLOT INITIATIVE TO AMEND ARTICLE IX OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO MAKE ZONING, DEVELOPMENT,
AND LAND USE MATTERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California in recent years has proposed, and passed, and Governors have signed into law more than 400 bills addressing a range of local land use, development, and planning issues; and
WHEREAS, the majority of these new laws usurp the authority of local jurisdictions, including city councils, county boards of supervisors, planning departments, and mayoral offices, among others, to determine for themselves the land use, development, and planning policies that best suit their communities and residents, and instead impose “one-size-fits-all” mandates that fail to account for the unique needs and differences of local jurisdictions throughout the State; and WHEREAS, the majority of these new laws do not provide any incentives or requirements for low-income, affordable, or moderate income workforce housing, but instead impose mandates that incentivize real estate speculation and the construction of unneeded market rate, above market rate, and luxury housing on a theory of “trickle down” economics, thereby eliminating the authority and ability of local jurisdictions to implement effective policies to create more affordable housing and affirmatively further fair housing practices; and WHEREAS, this “trickle down” approach to housing has demonstrably failed to produce the needed stock of low-income, affordable, and moderate-income housing for working Californians, instead pushing millions of working individuals and families into housing insecurity, defined as individuals and families who spend 50% or more of their monthly income on housing; and
WHEREAS, the ability of local jurisdictions to determine for themselves, based on their constituents’ and residents’ needs, which projects require review beyond ministerial approval; what off-street parking requirements are appropriate for different neighborhoods; what housing plans are appropriate for those neighborhoods; what zoning should be applied to those neighborhoods; what restrictions to place in high fire danger severity zones and other sensitive areas; and what types of housing are needed and appropriate, is a matter of critical importance to the City of Del Mar; and
WHEREAS the sixth cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) allocation of 175 new units imposed on the City of Del Mar bears no rational relationship to the City of Del Mar’s or San Diego County’s actual housing needs, and amounts to an arbitrary and capricious state mandate; and
WHEREAS, the state mandated sixth cycle RHNA units would force the City of Del Mar to approve development in open spaces, environmentally sensitive areas, high fire danger severity zones, and other areas inappropriate and/or dangerous for housing; and WHEREAS, the state mandated new construction of unneeded and inappropriate market rate, above market rate, and luxury housing via RHNA, most of which will be in dense, 4 July 7, 2025 Item 18 71 August 3, 2026 Item 1
Resolution No. 2025-XX
unaffordable new multifamily buildings, would place untenable and unsustainable stresses on local infrastructure, including but not limited to schools, police, sheriff, and fire resources, sanitation, roads, public transit, and water and power; and WHEREAS, by failing to appropriate funds for necessary infrastructure upgrades, including but not limited to new schools and increased resources for police, sheriff, fire, sanitation, roads, public transit, and water and power, the state mandated sixth cycle RHNA units are an unfunded state mandate that violates Article XIIIB, section 6 of the Constitution of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Del Mar hereby determines and declares that local governmental entities are best able to assess and respond to the unique needs of our communities and neighborhoods, and hereby objects to the proliferation of State legislation and sixth cycle RHNA mandates that deprives us of that ability.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California that:
1. That the City Council of the City of Del Mar is opposed to the legislature of the State of California continually proposing and adopting legislation that overrides the zoning, development, and land use authority of local government and inhibits the ability of local government to effectively plan for and implement policies to stimulate the efficient production of affordable and workforce housing.
2. That the City Council of the City of Del Mar hereby finds and declares that the sixth cycle RHNA mandate of 175 units by 2029 bears no rational relationship to the City’s actual housing needs, is arbitrary and, in the case of Del Mar’s allocation is flawed in the calculation formula and input data, and would be a physical impossibility to meet.
3. That the City Council of the City of Del Mar hereby finds and declares that the state mandated sixth cycle RHNA requirements are an illegal unfunded mandate in violation of Article XIIIB, section 6 of the Constitution of the State of California.
4. That the City Council of the City of Del Mar supports and endorses the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the State of California put forth by the grassroots nonprofit Our Neighborhood Voices attached to this Resolution as “Exhibit A” to ensure that zoning and land use authority rests with the local government entities that represent the communities in which the residents reside, and to allow local government to participate in solving our affordable housing crisis through solutions that effectively address the unique needs and conditions of each local community.
5. That the City Council of the City of Del Mar incorporates each recital set forth herein above.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California at the Regular Meeting held this 7th day of July, 2025. _____________________________
Terry Gaasterland, Mayor
City of Del Mar
5 July 7, 2025 Item 18 72 August 3, 2026 Item 1
Resolution No. 2025-XX
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 7th day of July, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
RECUSE:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
__________________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
6 July 7, 2025 Item 18 73 August 3, 2026 Item 1
Exhibit A to Attachment A
Our Neighborhood Voices- Ballot Initiative
The proposed constitutional amendments read as follows:
(from https://www.ourneighborhoodvoices.com/draft-initiative/) We, the undersigned, registered, qualified voters of California, residents of _____ County , hereby propose amendments to the Constitution of California, and petition the Secretary of State to submit the same to the voters of California for their adoption or rejection at the next succeeding general election or at any special statewide election held prior to that general election or as otherwise provided by law. The proposed constitutional amendments read as follows:
SECTION 1. The people of the State of California find and declare all of the following:
(a) California’s housing crisis is primarily due to a failure to provide enough housing (to own or rent) that is affordable for working class and lower income Californians, and this crisis has worsened due to massive reductions in available funding to help local governments encourage more affordable housing production. The involvement of large financial institutions and speculators in our housing markets and recent state laws that usurp the power of local government to exercise its constitutional authority to make local land use planning and zoning decisions have combined to further restrict affordable housing options and displace many working-class families and people of color from their own historic communities. (b) Local government is best able to consider all the requisite factors and make the difficult land use planning and zoning decisions to ensure that new development is supported by the infrastructure and utilities required to maintain appropriate levels of public services, including police and fire services, parklands and public open spaces, transportation, parking, and schools.
The specific needs and challenges facing every California community vary greatly and therefore require significant input and leadership from local government to achieve best outcomes on land use planning and zoning issues, including the provision of affordable housing and protecting the environment.
(c) The State Legislature cannot adequately consider or address the unique impacts of land use planning and zoning laws on every local community, and recent state laws designed to require local governments to increase housing density and encourage the production of more market rate housing by minimizing public input and eliminating environmental review will not solve our affordable housing crisis. In fact, these state laws will harm communities by escalating housing costs and increasing property tax burdens instead of encouraging collaboration with local government to produce more affordable housing.
(d) The purpose of this measure is to protect the ability of local communities to make local land use planning and zoning decisions, and to clarify the process to resolve conflicts between current or future state and local land use planning and zoning laws. One size does not fit all, and recent statewide land use and zoning laws will do great harm without significant input and participation from local communities. The “home rule” doctrine is enshrined in Sections 4 and 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, and local land use planning or zoning initiatives approved by voters shall not be nullified or superseded by state law.
(e) This constitutional amendment is expressly intended to authorize local land use planning and zoning law to override conflicting state law while ensuring that specified laws remain in full force and effect.
7 July 7, 2025 Item 18 74 August 3, 2026 Item 1
Exhibit A to Attachment A
SEC. 2. Section 3.5 is added to Article XI of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 3.5. For purposes of this article:
(a) “Land use planning and zoning law” means any law, whether adopted or put into effect by charter, ordinance, regulation, local initiative, or other action that accomplishes any of the following:
(1) Eliminates or restricts a city or county’s discretion to establish or change the zoning designation of any parcel within its jurisdiction.
(2) Requires a city or county to review, approve, or deny a development application on a streamlined, ministerial, or expedited basis if the project meets a specified criteria. (3) Approves or denies a development or subdivision of a parcel. (4) Imposes any restriction on the ability of a city or county to deny a development project or subdivision of a parcel.
(5) Establishes the procedure for establishing or changing the zoning designation of any parcel within its jurisdiction.
(6) Establishes the procedure or timing for reviewing and approving development applications.
(b) “Covered state statute” means a state law that addresses a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair, as that term is used in Section 5 of this article, and relates to any of the following:
(1) The protection of the environment or natural resources, including, but not limited to any of the following:
(A) The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) and California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 15000) of Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations).
(B) The California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code). (C) The California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code).
(D) The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code).
(E) The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 2710) of Division 2 of the Public Resources Code). (F) Pollution control or environmental justice laws, rules, or regulations. (2) The protection of health and safety, including but not limited to, the development of contaminated sites and regulation of hazardous material storage sites. (3) Emergency response to natural disasters and disaster planning and recovery. (4) The regulation of the physical structure and the construction of buildings. (5) The regulation of residential or commercial rents and landlord-tenant relations, including the Ellis Act (Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code) and Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Chapter 2.7 (commencing with Section 1954.50) of Title 5 of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code). (6) The siting of a power generating facility capable of generating more than 50 megawatts of electricity and the California Public Utilities Commission has determined that a need exists at that location and that the facility addresses a matter of statewide concern. (7)
(A) The development or construction of a water, communication, or transportation infrastructure project for which the Legislature lists the specific reasons explaining 8 July 7, 2025 Item 18 75 August 3, 2026 Item 1
Exhibit A to Attachment A
how the project addresses the statewide concern and declares that the development is in the best interests of the state.
(B) For purposes of this paragraph, a transportation infrastructure project does not include a transit-oriented development project, whether residential, commercial, or mixed-use.
(8) Fair housing matters, including, but not limited to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code), prohibitions against discrimination, or affirmatively furthering fair housing.
(9) Reporting and planning requirements, provided that the requirement does not otherwise impact the ability of a city or county to adopt, or put into effect, a land use planning and zoning law described in paragraph (1). Reporting and planning requirements imposed pursuant to this paragraph shall apply uniformly to all cities and counties and shall not discriminate amongst cities or counties based on voluntary compliance with any land use planning and zoning law adopted by the state.
SEC. 3. Section 5.5 is added to Article XI of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 5.5.
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), in the event of a conflict with a state statute, a land use planning and zoning law within the boundaries of the city shall be deemed a municipal affair within the meaning of Section 5 and shall prevail over a conflicting state statute. (b) A covered state statute shall prevail over conflicting land use planning and zoning laws, provided that for a covered state statute enacted on or after January 1, 2016, the Legislature makes a finding that the covered state statute addresses a matter of statewide concern. A finding of statewide concern made pursuant to this subdivision shall list the specific goals, purposes, and objectives of the statute.
(c)
(1) State funding appropriated before the effective date of this section shall not be modified due to a city preempting any state law pursuant to this section. (2) State funding appropriated after the effective date of this section shall not discriminate in favor of, or give any preference to, a city that voluntarily complies with state-adopted land use planning and zoning laws.
(d) The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
SEC. 4. Section 7 of Article XI of the California Constitution is amended to read:
SEC. 7.
(a)
(1) A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. that are not, except as provided in subdivision (b), in conflict with general laws. (2) A county or city shall not supersede or otherwise interfere with any voter approved local initiative.
(b)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a land use planning and zoning law within the boundaries of the county or city shall prevail over conflicting general laws. 9 July 7, 2025 Item 18 76 August 3, 2026 Item 1
Exhibit A to Attachment A
(2) A covered state statute shall prevail over conflicting land use planning and zoning laws, provided that for a covered state statute enacted on or after January 1, 2016, the Legislature makes a finding that the covered state statute addresses a matter of statewide concern. A finding of statewide concern made pursuant to this paragraph shall list the specific goals, purposes, and objectives of the statute. (c)
(1) State funding appropriated before the effective date of this section shall not be modified due to a city or county preempting any state law pursuant to this section. (2) State funding appropriated after the effective date of this section shall not discriminate in favor of, or give any preference to, a city or county that voluntarily complies with stateadopted land use planning and zoning laws. (d) The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
SEC. 5. Article XXXIV of the California Constitution is repealed. 10 July 7, 2025 Item 18 77 August 3, 2026 Item 1
EXHIBIT E
78 August 3, 2026 Item 1
EXHIBIT F
93 August 3, 2026 Item 1
EXHIBIT G
96 August 3, 2026 Item 1
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE • 1515 CLAY STREET • 20TH FLOOR • OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 • (510) 879-1300 December 5, 2025
City of Del Mar
Mayor Terry Gaasterland and City Council
1050 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
RE: Completeness Determination of Seaside Ridge Project Applications Dear Mayor Gaasterland and City Councilmembers,
Our office submits this comment pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(h)(6)(D)(iii)1 regarding the notice dated November 17, 20252 sent on behalf of Carol Lazier asserting that the City of Del Mar has effectively disapproved the proposed housing development project at 929 Border Avenue, which includes 85 homes affordable to households with lower and moderate incomes.
It is our understanding that the applicant for this project, which is commonly known as the “Seaside Ridge Project,” submitted a preliminary application in October 2022 and a full application in March 2023. There is no dispute that the preliminary application was submitted at a time when the City had not adopted a housing element that was in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law. The City has subsequently issued four letters conveying its incompleteness determinations with respect to both the preliminary application and full project application.
The project applicant challenged one of the City’s incompleteness determinations in the Superior Court for the County of San Diego. In that action, the City successfully argued that the applicant’s suit must be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, reasoning that “[h]ad Petitioner filed an appeal with the City Council, she could have claimed that the Planning Director’s determination was in factual error, that her findings were not supported by law, or that the determination conflicts with state law.” (City’s Mem. in Support of Motion to Dismiss at 4, 1 Subparagraph (D) is redesignated as subparagraph (E) effective January 1, 2026. References herein are to the California Code in effect as of this comment’s date.
2 The City was required to post the November 17 notice to its “internet website, provide a copy of the notice to any person who has made a written request for notices pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 21167 of the Public Resources Code, and file the notice with the county clerk of each county in which the project will be located” within five (5) working days of receipt. (See Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (h)(6)(D)(ii).) 97 August 3, 2026 Item 1
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Lazier v. City of Del Mar, Case. No. 37-2024-00009804, Super. Ct. San Diego County, May 21, 2025, original italics.)
On September 22, 2025, the City Council considered agenda item 7, “Initial Consideration of Courtesy Appeal per DMMC 1.12.020 of Planning Director’s Determination-Incomplete Status . . . Seaside Ridge Housing Development . . . Proposed 259 Multi-Unit Residential Development and Density Bonus Request at 929 Border.” At that hearing, the Council upheld the “Planning and Community Development Director’s determination that the . . . development application . . . status is incomplete.” (City of Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, September 22, 2025, available at https://www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_09222025-3745.) The City’s sustained practice of determining that the preliminary application remains incomplete or deemed not submitted, based on alleged changes in square footage and purported inapplicability of Government Code section 65589.5(h)(11) and related sections of the Housing Accountability Act, is untenable. The City’s course of conduct precludes judicial review of the project as proposed and frustrates the applicant’s ability to test the legal merits of the City’s positions. The City’s conduct to date could be seen as a deliberate attempt to avoid an adjudication regarding the applicability of the Housing Accountability Act’s Builder’s Remedy provisions. Regardless of the City’s motivation, evading a lawful Builder’s Remedy application would be a violation of Government Code section 65589.5, subdivisions (f)(6)(E) and (k)(1)(A)(ii)(IV). In simpler terms, the Housing Accountability Act, including Government Code section 65589.5, subdivisions (d), (f)(6)(E), and (k)(1)(A)(ii)(IV), requires the City to refrain from perpetually deeming the preliminary application “not submitted” and deeming the development application incomplete. The application process must either narrow outstanding issues and guide an applicant toward a complete application or generate a lawful denial within a reasonable time. (See Gov. Code § 65943.)
Based upon our office’s understanding of the Seaside Ridge Project applications, and the City’s response to those applications, the City’s refusal either to deny the application or deem the preliminary application to be submitted, and the full development application to be complete, suggests a continuous effort to avoid adjudication of the applicability of the Builder’s Remedy.
Such conduct, if ongoing, may implicate potential penalties pursuant to AB 712 (Wicks), which will take effect on January 1, 2026.
Sincerely,
DAVID PAI
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
For ROB BONTA
Attorney General
DP: dp
98 August 3, 2026 Item 1
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE • 1515 CLAY STREET • 20TH FLOOR • OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 • (510) 879-1300 February 13, 2026
City of Del Mar
Mayor Tracy Martinez and City Council
1050 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
RE: Written Advisory Pursuant to Government Code Section 65914.2 Regarding Completeness Determination of Seaside Ridge Project Application Dear Mayor Martinez and City Councilmembers,
Our office issues this letter, pursuant to Government Code section 65914.2, subdivision (b)(2)(A)(i)(I),0F
1 to advise the City of Del Mar that its ongoing effective disapproval of the proposed housing development project at 929 Border Avenue, which includes 85 homes affordable to households with lower and moderate income, represents a violation of the Housing Accountability Act, under section 65589.5, subdivisions (d), (f)(6)(E), and (k)(1)(A)(ii)(IV).
On December 5, 2025, our office advised the City that its sustained practice of determining that the preliminary application for the project remains incomplete or deemed not submitted, based on alleged changes in square footage and purported inapplicability of section 65589.5, subdivision (h)(11), and related sections of the Housing Accountability Act, is untenable.1F 2 (See Exhibit A.)
The City’s course of conduct precludes judicial review of the project as proposed and frustrates the applicant’s ability to test the legal merits of the City’s positions. (See id.) At a minimum, the City must refrain from perpetually deeming the preliminary application “not submitted” and deeming the development application incomplete. (See § 65589.5, subds. (d), (f)(6)(E) & (k)(1)(A)(ii)(IV).) The application process must either narrow outstanding issues and guide an applicant toward a complete application or generate a lawful denial within a reasonable time. (See § 65943.)
On December 19, 2025, our office received a written response from the City to our letter. (Exhibit B.) The City described its position on the merits of the preliminary application, contending, among other things, that the Builder’s Remedy does not apply to allow the project to be built as submitted, the project is inconsistent with the Coastal Act, and the proposed property site is identified in the City’s 6th Housing Element merely as a “contingency” site should plans for another housing site fail. While we appreciate the City reiterating its legal positions, nowhere in the letter did the City address our office’s stated concerns regarding the City’s ongoing efforts to 1 All statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 This letter incorporates and restates all previous factual and legal assertions made by our office in its letter dated December 5, 2025, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
99 August 3, 2026 Item 1
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL avoid taking a final administrative action to either deem the application complete or deny the application as incomplete.
In response to the City’s letter requesting a meeting with our office (Exhibit B at p. 6), members of our office met with City representatives on January 23, 2026. While that meeting was productive in the sense that the City affirmed its commitment to entitling and permitting housing development projects, for lower to moderate-income households in particular, the meeting did not resolve any of the legal issues presented in the Seaside Ridge development applications.
The City insists that it “stands ready to timely process the Seaside Ridge Project Application” so long as the applicant submits additional fees and documents related to Coastal Act compliance and CEQA compliance. (See Exhibit B at p. 5.) But, as our office understands the dispute regarding completeness, it can be simplified to the following: the City believes there are outstanding information and documentation that must be submitted in order for the application to be deemed complete, while the applicant believes they have submitted all required information and documentation for the application to be deemed complete and processed. The City and applicant have reached an impasse, and the City must either stand behind its argument and deny the application as incomplete or must deem the application complete. However, the City cannot continue to hold the application in administrative limbo to avoid taking a final administrative action, an action which would allow the applicant to take the next legal steps to challenge the City’s decision on their merits. By continuing to avoid a final action on completeness, the City has effectively denied the application, because the applicant must either act in accordance with the City’s legal position or face the continued stasis of their application. This continuous and effective denial, as we stated during our January 23rd meeting, triggers a separate violation of the Housing Accountability Act.
Despite this legal impasse, we are hopeful that both the City and the permit applicant will work together to come up with a feasible and meaningful housing development project that the City can approve. We are confident that the parties can do so, particularly in light of our interactions with the City’s dedicated and talented city manager and planning staff. We remind the City that Builders’ Remedy applications have been approved in the coastal zone in comparable cities, that the Coastal Act itself limits the situations in which coastal permitting agencies may reduce residential densities below that sought by applicants, and that the Coastal Act encourages affordable housing when developed in a manner that harmonizes state housing laws with coastal resource policies found in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and any governing Local Coastal Program. (See Pub. Res. Code §§ 30007 and 30604, subds. (f), and (g).) 100 August 3, 2026 Item 1
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Finally, effective January 1, 2026, Government Code section 65914.2 was amended to trigger the imposition of section 65589.5 fines and attorney fee-shifting provisions if the applicant prevails in a legal action alleging substantially the same allegations as those in this letter. (§ 65914.2, subd. (b)(2)(A)(i)(I).) Given the costs of litigation, we sincerely hope such an outcome will not be necessary, and that the City chooses instead to expend its public resources to working with the applicant to provide much needed housing to lower- and moderate-income households.
Sincerely,
DAVID PAI
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
For ROB BONTA
Attorney General
DP: dp
101 August 3, 2026 Item 1
EXHIBIT A
102 August 3, 2026 Item 1
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE • 1515 CLAY STREET • 20TH FLOOR • OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 • (510) 879-1300 December 5, 2025
City of Del Mar
Mayor Terry Gaasterland and City Council
1050 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
RE: Completeness Determination of Seaside Ridge Project Applications Dear Mayor Gaasterland and City Councilmembers,
Our office submits this comment pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(h)(6)(D)(iii)1 regarding the notice dated November 17, 20252 sent on behalf of Carol Lazier asserting that the City of Del Mar has effectively disapproved the proposed housing development project at 929 Border Avenue, which includes 85 homes affordable to households with lower and moderate incomes.
It is our understanding that the applicant for this project, which is commonly known as the “Seaside Ridge Project,” submitted a preliminary application in October 2022 and a full application in March 2023. There is no dispute that the preliminary application was submitted at a time when the City had not adopted a housing element that was in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law. The City has subsequently issued four letters conveying its incompleteness determinations with respect to both the preliminary application and full project application.
The project applicant challenged one of the City’s incompleteness determinations in the Superior Court for the County of San Diego. In that action, the City successfully argued that the applicant’s suit must be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, reasoning that “[h]ad Petitioner filed an appeal with the City Council, she could have claimed that the Planning Director’s determination was in factual error, that her findings were not supported by law, or that the determination conflicts with state law.” (City’s Mem. in Support of Motion to Dismiss at 4, 1 Subparagraph (D) is redesignated as subparagraph (E) effective January 1, 2026. References herein are to the California Code in effect as of this comment’s date.
2 The City was required to post the November 17 notice to its “internet website, provide a copy of the notice to any person who has made a written request for notices pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 21167 of the Public Resources Code, and file the notice with the county clerk of each county in which the project will be located” within five (5) working days of receipt. (See Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (h)(6)(D)(ii).) 103 August 3, 2026 Item 1
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Lazier v. City of Del Mar, Case. No. 37-2024-00009804, Super. Ct. San Diego County, May 21, 2025, original italics.)
On September 22, 2025, the City Council considered agenda item 7, “Initial Consideration of Courtesy Appeal per DMMC 1.12.020 of Planning Director’s Determination-Incomplete Status . . . Seaside Ridge Housing Development . . . Proposed 259 Multi-Unit Residential Development and Density Bonus Request at 929 Border.” At that hearing, the Council upheld the “Planning and Community Development Director’s determination that the . . . development application . . . status is incomplete.” (City of Del Mar City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, September 22, 2025, available at https://www.delmar.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_09222025-3745.) The City’s sustained practice of determining that the preliminary application remains incomplete or deemed not submitted, based on alleged changes in square footage and purported inapplicability of Government Code section 65589.5(h)(11) and related sections of the Housing Accountability Act, is untenable. The City’s course of conduct precludes judicial review of the project as proposed and frustrates the applicant’s ability to test the legal merits of the City’s positions. The City’s conduct to date could be seen as a deliberate attempt to avoid an adjudication regarding the applicability of the Housing Accountability Act’s Builder’s Remedy provisions. Regardless of the City’s motivation, evading a lawful Builder’s Remedy application would be a violation of Government Code section 65589.5, subdivisions (f)(6)(E) and (k)(1)(A)(ii)(IV). In simpler terms, the Housing Accountability Act, including Government Code section 65589.5, subdivisions (d), (f)(6)(E), and (k)(1)(A)(ii)(IV), requires the City to refrain from perpetually deeming the preliminary application “not submitted” and deeming the development application incomplete. The application process must either narrow outstanding issues and guide an applicant toward a complete application or generate a lawful denial within a reasonable time. (See Gov. Code § 65943.)
Based upon our office’s understanding of the Seaside Ridge Project applications, and the City’s response to those applications, the City’s refusal either to deny the application or deem the preliminary application to be submitted, and the full development application to be complete, suggests a continuous effort to avoid adjudication of the applicability of the Builder’s Remedy.
Such conduct, if ongoing, may implicate potential penalties pursuant to AB 712 (Wicks), which will take effect on January 1, 2026.
Sincerely,
DAVID PAI
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
For ROB BONTA
Attorney General
DP: dp
104 August 3, 2026 Item 1
EXHIBIT B
105 August 3, 2026 Item 1
Ralph T. Hicks. Esq.
[email protected]
Direct : (951) 949-4498
December 19, 2025
VIA EMAIL ONLY
David Pai, Esq.
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Re: Comment Letter Government Code section 65589.5(h)(6)(D)(iii) -Seaside Ridge Project City of Del Mar
Dear Mr. Pai,
The City of Del Mar is in receipt of your comment letter dated December 5, 2025, provided pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code Section 65589.5(h)(6)(D)(iii). This letter is in response to the comments your office provided to the City of Del Mar.
First, it is disappointing that the City was not contacted or asked to provide any information prior to the transmittal of your comment letter. As such, we would like to take this opportunity to provide objective and undeniable facts of the Seaside Ridge housing project and the City’s many attempts to lawfully process the Seaside Ridge development application. The assumptions made in your letter reflect the many misrepresentations that the Seaside Ridge development team has made to other governmental agencies and to the broader public regarding their proposed project.
While representations made by the developer sound compelling, objective facts demonstrate an entirely different reality.
In sum, the developer believes that the Builder’s Remedy applies to their development proposal and that the California Coastal Act and the California Environmental Quality Act do not apply. However, according to state housing laws this is not the case. As demonstrated below, every action the City has taken regarding the Seaside Ridge application is undeniably consistent with state housing laws and more importantly with the California Coastal Act.
The City’s goal is to produce a development plan that is consistent with state housing laws, the California Coastal Act, and the City’s certified Local Coastal Program and Community Plan. And where the two statutes are in conflict, the City will harmonize the competing statutes in a manner that produces a beneficial housing project for lower income households. The Seaside Ridge applicant, however, believes that state housing laws have no guardrails that allow for the protection of coastal resources and this misconception has resulted in four (4) incomplete development applications by their refusal to apply for a Local Coastal Program Amendment. 106 August 3, 2026 Item 1
David Pai, Esq.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
December 19, 2025
Page -2-
On May 23, 2023, counsel for Seaside Ridge filed a complaint with the California Housing and Community Development Department (“HCD”). The allegations submitted by Seaside Ridge in that complaint are the same allegations stated in your letter. However, the City and the Seaside Ridge development team were afforded an interview with HCD, which was followed by the City providing HCD with substantiating documentation. On August 15, 2023, the HCD Housing Accountability Unit concluded their investigation which resulted in no further action.
Inconsistency with the Coastal Act
The City of Del Mar is one and half (1 ½) miles wide and supports approximately 4,000 residents. The entire City is located within the Coastal Zone and the bluff tops along the shoreline are fragile and environmentally protected. The bluff top protections are codified in the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (“LCP”). The current LCP Land Use Plan density for the Seaside Ridge site is R1-40, which is a very low density of one (1) dwelling unit per one (1) acre. (City of Del Mar LCP pg. 16).
The Seaside Ridge project is a 259-unit project on an approximately six acre site which far exceeds current LCP density allowances. The area is protected by multiple Coastal resource overlay zones that are part of the City’s LCP, including the “Coastal Bluff,” , “Lagoon”, “Beach” and “Bluff, Slope, and Canyon”, and the latter establishes set grades and setbacks which the Seaside Ridge project violates with their access road and placement of structures. The Seaside Ridge project proposes structures that exceed 56’ and the height limitation for the project site is 14’.
As you are aware, state housing laws do not supersede the California Coastal Act and that is true of the Bulder’s Remedy as well:
“Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with the *** California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.” (Cal. Gov.
Code Sec. 65589.5 (e).
In order for the Seaside Ridge project to be successful the City’s certified Local Coastal Program must be amended. Each of the four (4) incomplete letters provided to the Applicant have the Applicant submit a Local Coastal Program Amendment application, which the Applicant has refused to submit. Rather, the Applicant has attempted to self-certify that their project complies with the California Coastal Act. However, there is no provision in the California Coastal Act that allows a developer to self-certify that their project has met the requirements of the Act. 107 August 3, 2026 Item 1
David Pai, Esq.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
December 19, 2025
Page -3-
The Builder’s Remedy Does Not Apply- Preliminary Application is Void and Not Because of a Clerical Error
The Applicant continues to falsely assert that the Builders Remedy applies to the Seaside Ridge project because at the time of submittal of their Preliminary Development Application, October 4, 2022, the HCD had not formally certified the City’s Housing Element. The formal HCD certification letter was received on May 31, 2023. The Applicant submitted the second (full) application on March 30, 2023; at that time the proposed project reflected a revised development proposal that grew the project in size and scope by 28%, which voided the ability of the Applicant to assert the benefits of the Builders Remedy compounded by the fact that they refused to complete the application process. The project growth was not a mistaken calculation, wishful thinking, or an oversight on the part of the City. The square footage was clearly stated by the Applicant in the City’s Uniform Development Application, and in two other places on the application.
The proposed increase in project size and scope is important because State housing laws state that the consequences of a project growing beyond the scope identified in the Preliminary Development Application result in the Preliminary Development Application being considered at that time as to be “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.
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 City, like most cities, relies on a Uniform Development Application form and format.
The Preliminary Development Application by the Seaside Ridge Applicant showed a total square footage (sf) of 308,968 sf. The full application submitted in March 2023 showed a total square footage of 396,259 sf. This was not inconsequential; the Applicant added a new parking level to the development and made other growth adjustments. In attempts to underplay the growth, the 108 August 3, 2026 Item 1
David Pai, Esq.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
December 19, 2025
Page -4-
Applicant asserts that an un-tabulated chart included in the project plans reflects a growth of less than 18%. This chart is riddled with errors and in order to determine the scope of the project many assumptions have to be made and math errors corrected. Later, the Applicant presented this table to the City and we assume your Department and HCD showing that the project did not grow by more than 20%, but the Applicant altered the table by including summary table boxes which were not part of the original application submittal. In sum the controlling document is the Unform Development Application and the other similar narrative descriptions provided by the Applicant.
These narrative descriptions were relied on by the City’s planning staff in determining the scope and growth of the Seaside Ridge project, a methodology used by cities throughout the state.
HCD Grant and Seaside Ridge Misconduct
In 2022, HCD awarded the City a Housing Acceleration Program (HAP) capital grant in the amount of $1.5 million to complete feasibility studies to facilitate the construction of affordable housing on 22nd District Agricultural Association’s (22nd DAA) land (also commonly referred to as the “Fairgrounds.”) Locating housing on the Fairgrounds property has the support of State Senator Catherine Blakespear, State Assemblymember Tasha Boerner, San Diego County Board of Supervisors, San Diego Association of Governments, neighboring City of Solana Beach, and other state and local officials.
To meet its assigned Regional Housing Needs Assessment goals, the City included a multifaceted set of strategies in the certified 6th Cycle Housing Element, including identifying the 22nd DAA site to accommodate at least 54 lower income units. In April 2024, the City and 22nd DAA executed an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement for the investigation and feasibility of developing at least 61 lower income units on 22nd DAA property. The Seaside Ridge property is a “contingency” site in the City’s Housing Element should the Fairgrounds housing site fail.
Ms. Lazier and her development team have been actively engaged in opposing the Fairgrounds housing site. The Seaside Ridge team appears at nearly every Board meeting where they attempt to derail the efforts made by HCD, the County, and the City to gain affordable housing on 22nd DAA property. They have publicly stated that their project is “shovel ready,” and that it will satisfy all of the City of Del Mar’s RHNA goals. None of these statements made by Carol Lazier and her development team are accurate and the only purpose they serve is to derail the Fairgrounds Housing project so that the Seaside Ridge project can move into a primary position. It is an attempt to undercut the purpose of the HCD grant and the will of State and local elected officials.
Notice
Consistent with Cal. Gov. Code Cal.Gov. Code Section 65589.5(h)(6)(D)(iii), the City within five days posted what the Applicant framed as a “cease and desist” on the City’s webpage and forwarded it to the Clerk of County of San Diego with instructions on posting on the County’s 109 August 3, 2026 Item 1
David Pai, Esq.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
December 19, 2025
Page -5-
webpage. The Applicant clearly exceeded their authority by replacing a notice provision with a cease and desist order. However, the City provided findings and directions to the Applicant within 90 days consistent with state law.
Your letter of comment will be considered as the Code requires and will be made part of the record consistent with Cal. Gov. Code Sec. 65589.54(h)(D)(iii).
The Seaside Ridge Appeal
The Applicant filed a petition for writ of mandate to compel the City to deem the development application “Complete.” However, the petition was dismissed by the Court on July 30, 2025, with prejudice, because the Applicant failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The City has an appeal process that includes a two-step process that involves an initial consideration hearing that is used to determine if there are grounds to move to the second step, which is a de novo hearing. Even though the Seaside Ridge Applicant failed to timely file an appeal on the City’s Incomplete Application determination, the City allowed the Applicant a courtesy appeal to air their claims in a public hearing before the City Council. The initial consideration hearing was held on September 22, 2025. There, Ms. Lazier’s counsel testified to the full scope of their concerns.
However, as required per the Del Mar Municipal Code, there were not two Councilmember votes to move the matter to a de novo hearing thereby upholding the Planning and Community Development Director’s Incomplete Application determination.
The City Stands Ready to Timely Process the Seaside Ridge Project Application The City has and continues to promptly process the Seaside Ridge project application. The City has clearly outlined what is needed from the Seaside Ridge development team in each of the four incomplete letters provided to them to achieve a “Complete” application status that would result in processing of the project. In sum, the documents needed are 1) Coastal Act compliance; 2) CEQA compliance; and 3) associated fees. These requirements were neither added to nor taken away when the City delivered its incomplete letters to the Applicant. Each incomplete letter was followed by the City receiving an extensive legal memorandum that rehashed that the Builder’s Remedy applies, CEQA and the Coastal Act does not. Again, neither is the case.
Offer to Joint Plan the Project
The City Manger reached out to Carol Lazier to jointly plan the Seaside Ridge project. This offer was an attempt to harmonize the coastal resource protection issues with the low-income housing goals of the project. The City clearly stated to Ms. Lazier that there is a path forward in resolving issues heights, density, access, bluff geologic stability, and traffic. This good faith offer 110 August 3, 2026 Item 1
David Pai, Esq.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
December 19, 2025
Page -6-
was met with outrageous bad faith demands that were clearly intended to derail any joint planning effort.
The City remains committed to meet its low-income housing goals and wholeheartedly supports those goals. The City remains open to a good faith joint planning exercise where we believe it is possible for the Seaside Ridge’s project goals to be harmonized with the requirements of the California Coastal Act.
Meeting Request
The City requests a meeting with your Department to provide a detailed history of the Seaside Ridge application process, the actions of the Seaside Ridge team, and more importantly how the Department can help the City reach its housing goals.
Sincerely,
Ralph T. Hicks
Assistant City Attorney, City of Del Mar
cc: Del Mar City Council
Leslie Devaney, City Attorney
Ashley Jones, City Manager
111 August 3, 2026 Item 1