DEL MAR — The 22nd District Agricultural Association board is once again questioning whether to continue discussions with city leaders about placing affordable housing on Del Mar Fairgrounds land, after the city shared support for reducing state control in housing matters.
The Fairgrounds and city entered into an exclusive negotiating rights agreement last year to study the possibility of developing at least 61 affordable housing units to help the city fulfill its state housing requirements.
At a July 24 meeting, 22nd DAA board member Mark Arabo advocated to pause affordable discussions with the city for a second time, until the City Council explains why it agreed earlier this month to support the Our Neighborhood Voices ballot initiative, which he claimed is “anti-affordable housing.”
Our Neighborhood Voices aims to amend the state constitution so that local housing laws regarding land use planning and zoning take precedence over state statutes.
The initiative was brought forward in response to the slew of recent state laws such as SB 9 and SB 330, intended to facilitate new housing development and remove local barriers to development, which some cities say are an overreach from Sacramento.
“What alarms me is today I heard public comments that the city of Del Mar supported a ballot initiative that goes against all the productive housing talks we’ve done, and goes against what our amazing governor has done, and goes against housing,” Arabo said.
The public comment in question came from a spokesperson for Seaside Ridge, a 259-unit housing project proposed for 959 Border Ave. on the city’s north bluff. Seaside Ridge developers have a personal stake in whether housing discussions continue between the city and the Fairgrounds.
The state Housing and Community Development Department has made it clear that if an agreement with the Fairgrounds fails, Del Mar will be required to rezone the 929 Border Ave. site under a Housing Element program known as 1E.
Seaside Ridge spokesperson Darren Pudgil told the Fairgrounds board on July 24 that they shouldn’t have to “solve Del Mar’s housing crisis,” and argued that the city’s support for Our Neighborhood Voices is a bad sign.
“The vote sends a clear message — Del Mar is not aligned with the governor’s housing priorities, and this board should not carry the burden for a city working against the state,” Pudgil said.
Del Mar leaders have claimed that Seaside Ridge is trying to undermine their housing discussions with the 22nd DAA.
“Counsel for the applicant has repeatedly tried to undermine the city’s efforts to secure low-income housing on the State Fairgrounds site by stating that the Seaside Ridge housing project is ‘shovel ready’ and can ‘meet all of the city’s housing demands.’ Neither is true,” Assistant City Attorney Ralph Hicks said in a July 18 letter to the developer.
The Fairgrounds previously paused housing talks with the city for a month in February, after Del Mar Mayor Terry Gaasterland publicly shared support for a rail route proposed under SANDAG’s Rail Realignment project in Del Mar that would be detrimental to the Fairgrounds.
Board members voted to resume talks with the city the following month, but with the caveat that the board would regularly revisit whether to continue the exclusive negotiating rights agreement.
At the July 24 meeting, other board members did not agree with Arabo to pause discussions with the city again. However, they said they would like more information from Del Mar about why they supported the ballot initiative and how they are making progress toward the goals in their Housing Element, and then they would make a decision on whether to continue after that.
Board member Kathlyn Mead noted that while the housing discussions are happening between the city and Fairgrounds CEO Carlene Moore, the board is not receiving enough information about where things stand.
“We’re not getting updates from these discussions,” Mead said. “We’re looking for one thing, and that is, is the city of Del Mar interested in being part of the solution or part of the problem?”
When the Del Mar City Council discussed the ballot initiative, they said new state housing laws are ultimately benefiting developers and not leading to the development of affordable housing. They also expressed frustration with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment process and said state housing laws conflict with other state statutes like the Coastal Act.
Along with Del Mar, the ballot initiative has also been supported by the cities of Encinitas and Oceanside, along with several other municipalities throughout the state.
Board member Michael Gelfand said pausing talks with the city again could be problematic for the Fairgrounds, as they need to maintain good relations with Del Mar as the rail realignment project continues.
Moore said the earliest Del Mar leaders could provide an update to the board is likely in September, as the council is on a recess through August.
The exclusive negotiating rights agreement includes a plan to identify a “mutually agreeable site” for an affordable housing development, determining scope and feasibility, and setting standards for a long-term ground lease.
Seaside Ridge
Seaside Ridge has argued that because the city’s 6th Cycle Housing Element was out of compliance at the time the application was submitted in late 2022, Del Mar is required to rezone the 929 Border Ave. property and approve the Seaside Ridge project under the builder‘s remedy law.
In June, a San Diego County Superior Court judge agreed to dismiss Seaside Ridge’s lawsuit against the city, stating that the developer first needs to try to appeal the city’s rejection of the project application before the courts can become involved.
Following this decision, Seaside Ridge representatives demanded in a July 12 letter that the city provide an avenue to appeal the project within 60 days, as the city has continually found the project application incomplete and has not made a decision regarding the project in a public hearing.
The Del Mar City Attorney’s Office reiterated in a July 18 response that the application is not complete until Seaside Ridge submits various missing materials, including applications for rezoning, a Local Coastal Program amendment, a General Plan amendment and an environmental assessment application.
The city said they have also offered to enter into a joint planning effort with project developers after the lawsuit dismissal to address impact issues from the proposed project.
Instead, the city said, Seaside Ridge representatives have continued to spread misinformation about the project and attempt to undermine the city’s housing discussions with the 22nd DAA.
